The Gates of Hell are WIDE open

8 Jun, '06

The Zarqawi Criminal

To welcome Zarqawi. And it’s been waiting for quite a while for this prick to be picked.

Good riddance, to hell you go and all your ilk, you criminal bastard. And let this be a lesson to all terrorists: you will be hunted like rats in sewers and you will be eradicated.

Congratulations Iraq and the “Muslim Ummah” for this great news… How I wished it to have happened a day earlier, it would have been very fitting if he had been snuffed on 666!

Filed in: General
Tagged with:

Comments (270)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Lujayn says:

    I was thinking of that too, that it would have been a fitting exit – seeing as he’s a devil incarnate. I was having a lousy day but this news definitely made my day! I suggested my boss give everyone the day off 🙂
    One less sicko in the world is definitely something to celebrate.

  2. 50% says:

    MAbrook to you all. what a happy weekend !

  3. YAAAAY,
    another one bites the dust,
    i wish he was beheaded in cold blood

  4. mahmood says:

    the dimwits are moderating their comments… let’s see if they post mine!

  5. Lujayn says:

    How anyone can glorify a blood-thirsty thug is beyond me. A few years ago Zarqawi was languishing in jail for petty crime (theft, drugs, prostitution, drunkenness, etc), and now, just because he preceded his murders with the words “Allah-u-akbar”, he’s become the epitome of faith and righteousness. The glorified leader of a people so lacking in judgment and character that such a man could become their shining light.

  6. Ingrid says:

    Wow..what news to wake up to (just got up). Too bad they didn’t get him alive..now ‘that’ would have been something… unfortunately, civil war in Iraq is far from over…
    (ok, you can’t have it all)
    Ingrid

  7. Aliandra says:

    When I heard he’d been killed, I thought ‘not again!’. Looks like it’s really true. Good riddance to bad garbage. However, I don’t think this is going to end the violence.

  8. MoClippa says:

    Yeah totally would have liked to have seen this happen on 666… but whatever the case, it made my morning!

  9. Steve The American says:

    Next.

  10. GREAT NEWS and it sure makes this rainy cool fall like weather a bit easier to take. Gotta agree with Steve… NEXT!!!!!!!

  11. Lujayn says:

    Mahmood, checking back on that dimwit’s post, I couldnt believe his reaction. He will most definitely not publish your post, judging from his “enlightened” attitude.

    Funny how the dimwit resides in the US, the land of the so-called Kuffar.

  12. Hayder says:

    The murderer of the Ashoora pilgrims and Al-Hakim is finally reunited with his buddies. Say hi to Yazeed for me, bro.

  13. mahmood says:

    welcome back Steve! 😀

  14. mahmood says:

    I know Lujayn, typical of cowards like them. And they have the temerity to call themselves Muslims as well!

  15. Tabuk Flyer says:

    Yep I could not agree more,”good riddance to bad shit,I hope the motha fucker burns in hell”.
    I fear though some other loon will be more than willing to step into his blood stained shoes and carry on the cycle.

    Mark

  16. Loki says:

    I’m glad this SOB is dead. May death follow swiftly to those like him. I do believe US spun this guy to be for more significant than he actually was but still i’m glad he’s gone. God knows best but I believe he will be in the depths of hell for killing so many people (muslims and non-muslim alike). May God curse him through eternity.

  17. Sally says:

    I am not a person who generally celebrates death, but this is one death that is merciful to all involved. If there is an afterlife, then he will meet the punishment he deserves, but in the meantime, the world can take comfort in knowing he has gotten what he deserved. Hopefully this signals a turn in the fortunes of the Iraqi people, who did not deserve him and his like, particularly considering all that they suffered under Saddam.

    And Steve. Ditto!

  18. Sally says:

    I just clicked on the anonymous link. and am hoping the FBI is doing its job and is closely watching this chicken-sh*t son of a dog. Sorry for the “hate-speech” on your blog Mahmood, but that was a horrifying read.

  19. mahmood says:

    hey be my guest Sally, that piece of shit was too cowardly to publish my comments, IT is obviously hand-picking only those comments that agree with his myopic and blood-stained point of view.

  20. Steve The American says:

    Zarqawi, in his postmortem photo, appears to be in pretty good shape. His body appears to be intact and unscorched. That leads me to believe that he was some distance from the detonation of the bombs which killed him or protected from the blast by something. Were he closer, his body would have been torn and burned. The heat at the center of such an explosion is high enough to render a body down to nothing. Had the bomb struck the small building in which he was holding a meeting, I would expect little to be left of him. It looks to me as if he was killed by the shock of the explosion, ie the concussive wave of air disrupted his internal organs.

    Likewise, I see no scorch marks on the rubble of his safe house or the metal debris. There is no smoke rising from the bomb site. Usually, it takes half an hour for the main smoke to clear the immediate area and flammable material burns for hours.

    I am curious as to the type of bombs dropped on Zarqawi. We’re told that it was JDAMs, which in this case were conventional 500 lb Mk 82 bombs with kits strapped on them to guide them via GPS. You have to ensure a half mile of separation to drop such bombs safely. One thing for sure, that safe house wasn’t safe at all.

    I don’t think Zarqawi’s death will lead to a massive change in the war, but rather continue the descent of the jihadis to defeat. It’s more like a milestone on a journey to a functioning Iraq. Other terrorists will take his place, but they will not be as capable. Al Qaeda will suffer the same fate as the native insurgent groups in Iraq, which is a methodical whittling down of the middle management of the terrorist enterprise. The replacement leaders will be progressively less cunning, less competent, and will make more mistakes which will undo them. The cycle turns over quicker and quicker until the organization fails.

    Aiding in this deterioration is the news that Zarqawi was undone by an informer in his own organization. That can’t be happy news for his replacement. What’s left of Zarqawi’s organization is likely to kill suspected informers in the next few weeks or those rivals they’ve been looking for an excuse to eliminate. That would be a good thing. That’s the problem with belonging to a terrorist group. Everything is solved with violence, including internal disputes.

  21. Anonymous says:

    What is Steve the American talking about? There’s bugger all evidence to suggest that the native insurgent groups are suffering the fate of being ‘whittle down to the middle management’. Hey, we’re all celebrating this fucker being on the receiving end of a jdam or whatever, but that’s not an excuse to lose complete touch with reality.

  22. Sadek says:

    A dog is dead, may others follow.

  23. Latest news I just saw Steve, reports Zarqawi was sold out for mere $10,000 by one of his own.(Unknown if the person who sold him out is eligible for the $25 mil reward) Zarqawi was in the basement of the building, so perhaps that shielded him a bit from the blast. I saw no news on the bombs make up themselves. One report had Delta Force on the ground “lazing”(sp?) the target. Regardless a piece of human scum is now fertilizer and Iraq and the world is better off for it. I understand there were 19 other raids that happened at the same time. Curious to find out just how many others met their doom as well.

  24. Will says:

    Too bad they couldnt have taken him alive. Oh well, a dead one is almost as good as one languishing in the only pergatory we can be sure of.

  25. Hayder says:

    It was reported on elaph that members on certain Saudi message boards have been posting condolences to each other ever since the news broke this morning. Interestingly enough, it also reports that Hamas issued a statement grieving over the death of the blood-thirsty terrorist. I guess it’s times like these that the true colors of people come out. It’s a shame that many Bahraini Shia sympathize with Hamas and even give money when donations are collected for them!

  26. Anon: “What is Steve the American talking about? There’s bugger all evidence to suggest that the native insurgent groups are suffering the fate of being ‘whittle down to the middle management’. Hey, we’re all celebrating this fucker being on the receiving end of a jdam or whatever, but that’s not an excuse to lose complete touch with reality.”

    There is plenty of evidence, but it is not presented by the liberal media because: 1) You have to be out in the field with the troops to discover it. The bulk of the reporters have been withdrawn from Iraq since 2003. The majority of the remainder prefer to stay in the Green Zone in Baghdad where it’s safe; 2) The media have decided Iraq is Vietnam and cherry pick their stories to fit the template of failure they want the US war in Iraq to be.

    Here is a post from Michael Yon, a former special forces soldier turned blogger who has embedded himself with troops in Mosul:

    The police were also developing their own intelligence and acting on it, even becoming adept at “the cascading raid,” as I began to call it. The Americans do it often, but call it “the domino effect.” Watching these raids unfold, I saw the effect was more like a cascade. Raid cascades happened like this: a bad guy is caught, and tells where other terrorists are, who are then quickly caught, and they in turn rat out a few more. One terrorist might lead soldiers to three more, who might lead them to four more, who might lead them to another one. Sometimes the cascades lasted only a few hours and netted perhaps a half a dozen fighters before petering out. Other cascades lasted days and netted dozens.

    An example of a typical cascade happened when the 5-West police captured two terrorists who were handing out Jihad literature. During interrogation, they ratted the location of their cell leader. The police raided the cell leader’s house, killed one terrorist and captured seven others. The cell leader quickly broke, giving up the identity of his boss. The police continued the momentum of the cascade, capturing the higher ranking cell leader, who in turn gave interrogators the location of a large cache of weapons, mortars, and ammunition. The weapons cache validated the capture and validity of all the previously captured terrorists in the cascade.

    Strangely, foreigners captured by Americans in Mosul always seemed intent on telling every secret they knew as fast as possible. This seems counter-intuitive. It seems reasonable that the foreigners would have the strongest resolve. But in fact they are alone, without support and very easy prey for local terrorist cell leaders. Terrorists feeding on terrorists. It’s no wonder that when they are captured, foreign fighters typically tell everything.

    From these “tell-all” interrogations, we’ve learned how local insurgents recruit foreigners, including how they coerce some of the “jihadists” to carry out homicide attacks. Time and again, the soldiers in Mosul would capture foreigners, and the jihadists would tell everything. The Deuce Four captured a Libyan who then complained loudly to the Americans that the Iraqis wanted him to commit suicide while killing Iraqi police. He wanted to fight Americans mano-a-mano, and the alternate plan was not a worthy substitute to his thinking. Strangely, in sense, the Americans rescued an enemy from his enemies, who were also our enemies.

    Some of the captured documents were letters from terrorists to Zarqawi complaining about the incompetence of their local leadership.

    You are not reading any of this in the newspapers nor seeing it on the news because that is not the story the left-leaning press wants to tell. What you are reading is chitchat from the journalists in the bar in the Green Zone and the prejudices of editors in New York. The portrait they paint bears little resemblance to the war witnessed by the warfighters themselves.

    For example, the US military often reports that they have captured Zarqawi’s lieutenant or the second-in-command of a Baathist insurgent unit. The liberal press discounts these stories as lies by the military, saying there can’t be that many lieutenants. The true story is that the original seconds-in-command, the middle managers of the insurgency, are being captured/killed, then replaced by progressively less competent people, who get caught easier.

    Anon, you just might consider that the view of the war you have been offered by the media is deeply distorted, particularly if you live outside the US. The bias is bad enough here in the American media, worse in Europe, and worst in the Middle East. I recommend skepticism when consuming the processed opinion of most news sources and to proceed to the primary sources in Iraq.

  27. mahmood says:

    certain Saudi message boards have been posting condolences to each other

    I’m waiting for Mohammed Khalid and his lot demand that the Bahraini parliament and government do the same!

    It’s a shame that many Bahraini Shia sympathize with Hamas

    Until we start to evaluate people as people, and causes as causes and leave behind that “we must support this or that all the way because they are shia, or sunni, or muslim” as the case may be, we will not look at issues in a rational manner.

  28. Loki says:

    Hayder – Hamas have in the past made sure to distance themselves from Al-Qaida. Do you have anything to support your statement. There is a world of difference between Hamas and Al-Qaida.

  29. Loki says:

    Steve – I find american media to be a total joke when it comes to reporting on the war. What american media channels/publications are you reffering to when you suggest the media in the US is less biased than elsewhere?

  30. alfanan says:

    This is from Annon’s link:

    “Subhana’Allah look at his face. Filled with noor. Beautiful man, Masha’Allah. ALLAHU AKBAR!”

    Filled with Noor? Beautiful man? I can’t see any noor or beauty on this idiot’s face. I’m just glad he’s gone, but who’s next?

  31. Loki says:

    Hayder- thanks for the link. They don’t mention it on thier website though.

  32. Straight to hell.

    Listen to this crap:
    http://muntada.aleslah.org/vb/showthread.php?t=19415

    I can’t believe that there are any sane people who feel sorry for the death of this bloddthirsty creature.
    I’m glad I lived to see him blow up in this humi’liating and shameful way.

    I just hope they stop spreading his picture after his died- it is disgusting.

  33. Hayder says:

    Doesn’t it hurt to see a society like aleslah, who are known for being moderate Sunnis, blatantly making such derrogatory and hostile posts about the Shia on their message boards, while at the same time praising terrorists? Of course, they’re free to say what they want, but one can’t help but infer that their words uncover the true face of their ideology, which is nothing but hostile towards all of humanity and barbarically intolerent of people with the exception of those who praise Omar!

    It’s wrong to generalize, of course it is (and I don’t really think I can prove a generalization), but when I see consistent signs throughout all my years of existence pointing towards a fact, I can’t help but do so.

    May we all witness the day when it becomes illegal to have a beard longer than 4″ combined with a dress that’s over 2″ from the ground. If the mouth has a chewed up piece of stick hanging out of it, then the fine must be doubled, and if the belly is sticking out at least 3″, it must be tripled! If, on inspection, the beard has Coco Pops, Frosties or regular Corn Flakes stuck in it, the person must remain in jail for 7 days. If it has anything else, the term is reduced to 4 days.

  34. Sally says:

    Well, it appears that Steve’s very astute observation re the condition of Zarqawi’s body was right on the mark.

    According the the librul NY Times

    Abu Musab al-Zarqawi briefly survived the bomb attack that ultimately killed him Wednesday night, a military spokesman said today, saying he was seen to turn away and mumble when American troops approached.

    Gen. William B. Caldwell, a spokesman for the military in Baghdad, said in a televised briefing that military personnel attempted to give Mr. Zarqawi medical care, “but he died almost immediately thereafter.”

  35. zara says:

    regardless of the loathing i feel for the tactics and ideology propagated by al qaeda, i had to respond to the post by steve–

    i find it bemusing but worrying that steve considers the mainstream corporate media to be ‘left leaning’.
    Go to democracynow (the real “left-leaners” thank you) and listen to what the father of an american man who was beheaded by al qaeda in iraq.
    it puts your argument that we should believe what the us military and government (vs the ‘leftwing’ media) to shame.

    and to be honest, i think it is a shameful argument. if we go according to your version of events, where are the WMDs in Iraq? Where is the evidence of a link between saddam hussein and al qaeda? Where is the link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11?

    Acoording to the US military version of events, torture is not used at guantanamo bay – just ‘coercion’. detainees don’t try to kill themselves – they engage in ‘manipulative self injurious behaviour’. they don’t go on hunger strike, it’s just fasting.

    And now we’re supposed to sit back and cheer another ‘victory’ staged by the us army in iraq. well we were there at the first ‘victory’ when saddam’s
    statue was toppled – and we all know what happened next.

    can’t WAIT to see what this ‘victory’ has in store for us.

    On a separate note, an interesting analysis from another blog:
    “A while back, Zarqawi faced internal opposition within Al-Qaida to his tactics and approach to resistance in Iraq. The targeting of civilians caused Al-Qaida, and ostensibly the Iraqi resistance to fall out of favor with the Arab street. As a result, Al-Qaida demoted Zarqawi, and replaced him in some posts.

    Battling downward popularity trends, -I mean, if you are not popular with Al-Qaida for killing people, then you’re really not making it- understanding that capture was not an option after seeing the humiliation it is for Saddam, and knowing there was little he could do to redeem himself, -not that he could start from scratch with a job at McDonald’s either- Zarqawi planned his ultimate PR move: martyrdom.

    A few weeks back, he went on a PR blitz that was designed to give more credit for resistance of the US troops, raise his profile, and make him a publicly recognized figure, literally, he appeared without a mask. For a militant, a recognizable face is a big no no, if you plan to stay alive, but if you value recognition more than life, that’s a different story…

    But in the case of Zarqawi, it was obvious that he appeared in the form in which he tours Iraq, giving informants and bounty hunters all the material they need to track him down and call in an airstrike. Zarqawi got his wish; because in his mind, this is the best place he could go, and with the most public of ceremonies.”

  36. Will says:

    zara,

    I, for one, was glad that the US military was able to accomodate Zarqawi’s wish for martyrdom. All those terrorists wishing to be martyred pls send photo and address to USgov.org and then fix yourself a cup of tea.

  37. M says:

    zara,

    Sorry, it’s been raining here all week, so I am pretty grumpy and couldn’t help but respond. You’re entitled to your opinion the same as Steve or anyone else, but posting someone’s subjective opinion that Zarqawi staged his own death because he had lost favor with Al-Qaida is about as credible as the spin you accuse the US military of. Besides, it is illogical; Zarqawi was quite useful to Al-Qaida as long as he only killed non Muslims aka MNF, the Evil Empire, Americans. The fact that he was able to turn some of the groups against each other was just another plus.

    In any case, everyone’s spin aside; there are certain facts that aren’t in dispute. Namely Zarqawi’s own statements and those of Al-Qaida regarding their endorsement of him. So spin all you want, zara. He was a nutcase who got what he deserved, and the world is a better place without him no matter if the Air Force got him or he bombed himself!

    Oh, and by the way, the MSM does indeed lean to the left; a child could can figure that out after watching 5 minutes of each major news outlet. That is not to say Americans believe the media anymore than they believe their government officials, because they don’t even though it makes for nice spin for some with an agenda.

  38. zara says:

    M –
    i thought the ‘spin’ on zarqawi’s death was interesting, and raised some valid points. but that was the least of my points.
    and i’m not ‘spinning’ i was posting some ‘analysis’ – with all due respect i think u should be able to understand and accept attempts to put facts into context.
    you empower (and use the same logic as) fanatics with your own black + white interpretation of events.

    as for the mainstream media, i’m sorry but your argument that “a child could figure out” that the american mainstream media is left leaning is as unconvincing as it is unsubstantiated.

    the US may have the freest political system in the world but that is unfortunately coupled with the most sophisticated propaganda machine in the form of your corporate media (and possibly education system).

    back to the point i believe steve was making about ‘military sources’ and i guess embedded ‘journalists’ – respected (actual) journalists have raised some serious concerns about the validity of such sources.

    i’m not sure what you mean by your last sentence – but i’m just wondering whether you are under the assumption that the us military and government have no agenda, and therefore no spin?

  39. Loki: “I find american media to be a total joke when it comes to reporting on the war. What american media channels/publications are you reffering to when you suggest the media in the US is less biased than elsewhere?”

    Well, Loki, we disagree here. You find the American war reporting to be a total joke while I consider it mostly a joke. The main stream media is politicized, which is to say most journalists have abandoned a straight reporting of the facts in favor of editorializing in their stories. If you examine a variety of sources you can probably get half the story. However, much of the news carries many hidden assumptions made by the reporters to favor their particular politics. The majority of the press is liberal, so the bias tends to favor liberal ideology. A minority of the press, such as Fox News, is conservative, and tends to favor conservative ideology.

    For example, you often see stories about murders in the US committed with assault weapons. In fact, there are virtually no murders committed with assault weapons in the US. Assault weapons are expensive and difficult to acquire legally. Journalists don’t know what an assault weapon is but most journalists are against private ownership of guns, so they call any weapon used in a crime an assault weapon. Usually, that means semiautomatic rifles are called assault weapons, in error. The effect of this bias is to convey an erroneous impression that the US is under siege by assault weapons.

    As an example of the increase of bias in reporting from the US to Europe to the Middle East, take the reporting on Sep 11. In the US, only the publications of the far Left claim that somebody other than Al Qaeda perpetrated the Sep 11 attacks. They are quite correctly seen as the lunatic fringe here, even by the few remaining sane liberals. In France and Germany, one third of the population believes that the US attacked itself on Sep 11, due to the wildly biased reporting which feeds an irrational anti-American bias. In the Middle East, it is accepted by the mainstream that Muslims could not possibly have perpetrated Sep 11. Their media tells them that Mossad or the CIA made the attack, a conspiracy theory that appeals to their religious bigotry. The lunatic fringe in the US is the lunatic minority in Europe and the lunatic majority in the Middle East.

    For another example, look at the reporting of the 2003 Gulf War. The majority of the US media got the story correct, that US forces were rather rapidly winning. Only a few of the leftist media incorrectly reported that US forces had been halted and bogged down in a quagmire. In France, the reporting of anti-American papers such as Le Monde were so relentlessly negative that many readers were surprised when we took Baghdad. The French reporting had led them to believe that US forces were defeated. I believe it was Robert Fisk of the leftist British media who found a quiet corner of the Baghdad airport to report that the US military was lying about taking the airport, even though our soldiers were setting up positions in the terminal. Middle Eastern reporting went beyond that. They covered Baghdad Bob’s assertions that the Iraqis had driven out the Americans without rebuttal, even as American tanks rolled across the background.

    The Middle East reporting was perhaps the most cynical, because everyone involved knew it was a lie: Baghdad Bob, Al Jazeera, the viewers. I recall the reaction of one Egyptian viewing from Cairo who said after Baghdad Bob had fled that he knew what he was saying was a lie but he wanted it to be true so bad he kept watching.

    Steve

  40. zara: “i find it bemusing but worrying that steve considers the mainstream corporate media to be ‘left leaning’.

    Well, Zara, it’s not like I’ve discovered anything new or remarkable here. Here’s a link that there are two liberal Washington reporters for every conservative one. That proportion increases to 3 to 1 among elite reporters. 61% of newspaper journalists identified themselves as liberal compared to 15% conservative. Further studies find that the trend toward liberalism in the media has increased over the last few years.

    Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek, a liberal magazine, laid it out on the talk show, “Inside Washington” during the last presidential election: “Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards — I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but — they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”
    http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040712.asp#1

    zara: “Go to democracynow (the real “left-leaners” thank you) and listen to what the father of an american man who was beheaded by al qaeda in iraq. it puts your argument that we should believe what the us military and government (vs the ‘leftwing’ media) to shame.”

    Michael Berg hardly makes a persuasive case against the US when he suggests, in this interview, that Zarqawi never existed. Berg has been consistently irrational in all of his announcements. In his first statements after his son’s death, he insanely claimed that the terrorists who beheaded his son recognized his humanity more than President Bush. Berg is a member of the Stalinist group ANSWER which has organized most of the major anti-war demonstrations in the US with the self-professed goal of fomenting a socialist revolution in the US. Even the radical left organizations hate ANSWER and are embarassed by association with it.

    I fail to see why you find Berg a reliable source. If anything, he illustrates the Left’s descent into madness. He is so eaten up by hatred of Bush that he sympathizes with his son’s beheader. He is grotesque.

    zara: “if we go according to your version of events, where are the WMDs in Iraq?”

    The hidden assumption in your argument is that the US invaded Iraq solely to defeat it’s WMD. That’s false. There were about two dozen reasons, mostly focused on Iraq’s non-compliance with the UN resolutions imposed upon it after its aggression against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

    While we didn’t find the thousands of WMDs that everyone expected, we did find, according to the Duelfer report, dozens of WMDs, a network of covert WMD labs, and plans to smuggle ricin into Europe and America in perfume bottles. Duelfer found that chemical weapons had not been mass-produced recently, but small batches had been made for purposes of either research or terrorism. So Bush’s concern about Saddam aiding a terrorist attack on America with WMDs was justified. Thankfully, Saddam had no WMD deployed to use on a large scale in the war.

    Saddam’s stockpiles of WMD have not been accounted for. Georges Sada, former second in command of Iraq’s air force, says that WMD were moved to Syria immediately before the war on two cargo Boeing 747s on 56 sorties.
    http://www.noendbutvictory.com/?p=232

    Then there is an interesting letter, dated six months before the war began, to Uday Hussein which reports that WMD had been buried near Fallujah, apparently to hide them until the UN inspections were over. It’s one of the documents captured in Iraq and recently translated.
    http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014323.php#014323

    I suspect that after the dust is settled on Iraq, somebody will find caches of WMD in the desert. All the chemical toxins could fit in a big swimming pool. That’s pretty easy to hide in a big desert.

    zara: “Where is the evidence of a link between saddam hussein and al qaeda? Where is the link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11?”

    Well, Zara, there is the meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence chief Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani in Prague on April 8, 2001. Czech intelligence has stood by that identification. They also claim that al-Ani’s calendar had a notation in it for that day that said that he was meeting with a “Hamburg student.” That’s how Atta identified himself on his passport.

    An Iraqi agent by the name of Ahmed Hikmat Shakir facilitated and attended a small Al Qaeda meeting in January 2000 in Kuala Lumpur attended by two of the Sep 11 skyjackers. Shakir fled back to Iraq after the meeting where he apparently was a lieutenant colonel in the Saddam Fedayeen.

    As for the relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam, it was reported in the Middle Eastern and Western press before Sep 11, but now has apparently been thrown down the memory hole for those in denial of the inconvenient facts. Stephen Hayes has written a book about the Bin Laden/Saddam relationship, “The Connection,” and outlines the longstanding relationship in this article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp?pg=1

    Here is the memo to the US Senate Intelligence Committee detailing what is known about the Saddam – Bin Laden relationship, fifty points that detail known contacts between the two.

    What’s amazing is that with all this information out there confirming that there was indeed an ongoing relationship of long standing between Saddam and Bin Laden, there are people who still deny it.

    zara: “Acoording to the US military version of events, torture is not used at guantanamo bay – just ‘coercion’. detainees don’t try to kill themselves – they engage in ‘manipulative self injurious behaviour’. they don’t go on hunger strike, it’s just fasting.”

    According to prison inspectors from Europe, the Gitmo prisoners are treated better than equivalent Belgian prisoners. And they are far better treated than French prisoners. As for the Middle East, well, Gitmo prisoners being transferred back to their home countries beg to stay at Gitmo.

    And really, bogus claims of torture are a standard Al Qaeda tactic, documented in their training manual.

    Zara, how do the captives of Al Qaeda fare? Are they fed well, taking care not to serve them any meals that violate their religious sensitivities? Does Al Qaeda provide them with Bibles and Torahs so they can profess their religion? I’m curious as to why you haven’t mentioned them.

    zara: “And now we’re supposed to sit back and cheer another ‘victory’ staged by the us army in iraq. well we were there at the first ‘victory’ when saddam’s statue was toppled – and we all know what happened next.”

    Well, if you were an Iraqi Shiite, it meant that there was no chance anymore that Saddam would load you into buses with everyone you knew and execute you en masse in the desert. That seems worth a cheer or two to me.

    zara: “can’t WAIT to see what this ‘victory’ has in store for us.”

    One thing that this victory ensures is that Zarqawi will not feature you in his next snuff video. My guess is most people would rather keep their heads than give it to Zarqawi as a trophy. And maybe, just maybe, Zarqawi’s death will put a kink in the pipeline of suicide bombers killing Iraqi civilians. That, too, is a good thing.

    zara: “understanding that capture was not an option after seeing the humiliation it is for Saddam, and knowing there was little he could do to redeem himself, -not that he could start from scratch with a job at McDonald’s either- Zarqawi planned his ultimate PR move: martyrdom.”

    This is a very lame and unbelievable argument. Zarqawi could have taken the place of any of the suicide bombers he dispatched to their deaths had martyrdom been his aim. The cowardly leaders of terrorist organizations are perfectly willing to fight to the last drop of somebody else’s blood, not their own. Zarqawi was making a lot of effort to hide from America, who would have been glad to make him a martyr. All he had to do is phone his location in to the Green Zone and he could have been dead in thirty minutes. In this case, Zarqawi was busted the same way a big drug dealer is busted: Grab a little guy, turn him with threats or rewards. Follow the chain of command up until you hook the big fish.

    And Zarqawi was enjoying life on the run. The most recent reports claim that the three women who were with him were not exactly pious Muslims. They found flimsy nightgowns in the rubble of the safe house, one of them a leopard print. Looks like all that talk about abayas was for the other Muslims, not Zarqawi. Maybe he should have been checking the sky for American F-16s instead of gluing his eyes to that leopard print negligee. Looks like he didn’t buy into the whole 72 virgins in paradise concept. He wanted to get his now.

    Steve

  41. Lujayn says:

    Steve, whatever your feelings towards Zarqawi, I don’t think you should descend into irrational and absurd analysis. I take issue with your last point (the rest, I can live with and some points, even accept). The fact that there were women in the house could very well have been because they were married to any of the men killed there, or were related to them. There is no evidence that they were Zarqawi’s whores. Misguided maybe, but I don’t think I can presume they were there for his pleasure.

    What reports claim they weren’t exactly pious Muslims??? Must have been one of your reliable sources that reported they ran tests and found Zarqawi’s bodily fluids were found in them. Is the evidence the flimsy nightgowns found in the rubble? Sounds like Inspector Clouseau was on the trail of that one. Do you think Muslim women who wear abayas, wear one over the other? One abaya serves as their abaya, the next layer of abaya serves as their dress and the third as their underwear? The outer layer is all that is required. They can be just as racy and hot as anyone else, anywhere else, underneath. The more I think of it, the more your deductions cracks me up.

    Stick to your regular analysis, you were really far off on this one.

  42. zara says:

    this is all i have to say right now: three muslim men were said to have hung themselves at guantanamo prison yesterday morning.
    and your military officials described it as “an act of war”

    not to mention how disgusting that comment is, can anyone say doublespeak? if there’s anything to make george orwell rise from his grave this is it.

    ps – as to “Zara, how do the captives of Al Qaeda fare? Are they fed well, taking care not to serve them any meals that violate their religious sensitivities? Does Al Qaeda provide them with Bibles and Torahs so they can profess their religion? I’m curious as to why you haven’t mentioned them.”

    all i can say is you raise an interesting parallel between one set of ‘democratically’ elected fanatics and another set of self anointed leaders of ‘islam’.

  43. Anonymous says:

    Alas. Alex Jones (http://www.infowars.com/) has made a believer out of me.

    Let’s see…

    1. A 500lb bomb is dropped on his safehouse. [These things make craters. Did you see the video?] This bomb blows shit in four directions for over one city block.
    2. ANOTHER 500lb bomb is dropped on this same safehouse.
    3. Zarqawi, who, alledgedly, had a prosthetic leg and could outrun humvees in the desert, is NOT blown to smithereens [like the house in the video] but manages to stay alive. [Even IF he had been standing in the yard, he would have been blown to pieces.]
    4. Zarqawi is STILL alive, is “strapped to a stretcher by Iraqi police,” and “tries to get up as US special forces appear on the scene.”
    5. A United States special forces unit known only by a number arrives at the scene and takes charge of the body.
    6. Iraqi media trying to film the event are prevented from doing so.
    7. There are no remains of ANY other dead at the target recovered.

    NOPE.

    GLOBALIST agent provacatuer Zarqari was NOT blown up but, rather, was killed in a much less violent manner and deposited at the scene.

    This is too much of a psychological stretch for most people but, to quote Sherlock Holmes, “Eliminate the contradictions and whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is the truth.”

    What about it ya’ll? What do you think? Can you continue to live with these contradictions?

    How about it, Steve-the-American?

  44. Anon above:

    Read this about some of the other remains and items found at the scene:

    http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060610065409990003&ncid=NWS00010000000001

  45. Anonymous,

    I was surprised to see that Zarqawi was intact, let alone was alive for a few minutes after the blast. I have dropped a handful of Mk-82 500 lb bombs and from what I could see from the air, it looked pretty unhealthy to be anywhere close to the impact. I would have expected Zarqawi to be in scorched and unrecognizeable pieces at best.

    However, I watched a documentary about a fire on an aircraft carrier, USS Forrestal, which featured ship video of the aft end as it burned. There were A-4 fighters parked there, ready to be launched for a mission over Vietnam. Sailors were clustered about them trying to put out the fire. The fire began cooking off the 500 lb bombs hung on the aircraft. While some sailors were killed, others were only knocked down and got back up to fight the fire again. That was pretty surprising to see. Obviously, the force of the explosion is not distributed uniformly out from the bomb. There are survivable creases and gaps in the blast.

    When a Mk-82, or any bomb, explodes in an open area, the blast appears to radiate out in a perfect sphere. If you look at the Zarqawi gun video, you can see that the blast appears to radiate out to the four points of the compass. That tells me that the bomb struck some sort of structure within the house which channelled the blast into four arms. If Zarqawi was on the other side of that obstruction, he could well have remained intact and been protected from the heat and shrapnel. It appears to me that he died of the concussion, ie the shock wave of air pressure from the detonation.

    Victims of artillery fire can appear to be unharmed, without a bruise, yet dead from the shock wave damaging their internal organs. Some victims of suicide bombs in Israel appear unhurt and curiously elated, even though they are doomed from internal injuries due to the shock wave and have only minutes to live.

    So while Zarqawi’s brief survival is surprising, it’s not incredible.

    Your souce is completely wrong to claim that no other remains were found at the attack site. Five other bodies were found. This was reported in every news story covering the attack. How could your source miss that? How could YOU miss it?

    As for those who think there was no crater from these bombs, they need to examine the photos of the site. There’s a crater. When the conspiracy nuts start blathering nonsense like this it’s evidence of the sloppiness of their reasoning and all a reasonable person needs to dismiss their conclusions.

    Simply put, Alex Jones is no Sherlock Holmes, unless Sherlock traded in his deerstalker cap for a tinfoil hat.

    Steve

  46. Zara: “this is all i have to say right now: three muslim men were said to have hung themselves at guantanamo prison yesterday morning.
    and your military officials described it as “an act of war” not to mention how disgusting that comment is, can anyone say doublespeak? if there’s anything to make george orwell rise from his grave this is it.”

    Zara, you are being credulous. You also need to furnish a link to back up your argument.

    In one of the latest attacks that Gitmo prisoners have made on the guards, they began with one prisoner pretending to hang himself in a bay full of prisoners. When a special team of guards entered to save the apparent suicide, the other prisoners attacked them with weapons improvised from fan blades and other metal fixtures. While the guards were fending off the prisoners, they were surprised to see the “suicide” undo his bedsheet noose and join the attack on them.

    Don’t be so naive, Zara.

    Steve

  47. Anonymous says:

    Steve the American:

    Yes, bombs DO make CRATERS! You missed my point interpretting that I was denying there was a crater. The fact that there IS such a crater rules out a Zarqawi corpse that is intact.

    It is too much of a stretch of IMAGINATION to believe that Zarqawi died in that DOUBLE bomb blast and remained intact. It also defies Occam’s Razor and is therefore UNSCIENTIFIC…assumption. Perhaps you also believe in The Single Bullet theory. Sure you do because you are a good sheep and believe what you are told to believe.

    Are you also the kind of soldier who will go into American cities armed to the teeth and disarm and arrest innocent civillians in there homes at gunpoint whenever FEMA says too? Sure you are because you do what you are told to do.

    SHOW me the other bodies. I know they are not near as intact as Zarqawi.

    Cerebral Waste:

    Thanks for the link about the remains. I did not see any pictures of dead bodies other than Zarqawi. Shreaded leopard skin nighties don’t count as dead bodies. Rather, when presented like this they are meant to suggest a bacchanalian lifestyle to the reader. While this may be true, the reader is supposed to miss the inference that Zarqawi’s corpse would not remain in such pristine condition. [See “Single Bullet Theory” above.]

  48. M says:

    zara
    ”and i’m not ’spinning’ i was posting some ‘analysis’ – with all due respect i think u should be able to understand and accept attempts to put facts into context.
    you empower (and use the same logic as) fanatics with your own black + white interpretation of events.”

    Funny stuff, zara. I’m going to cut you some slack for the stuck on stupid statement for my own personal reasons. It seems to me that you were indeed spinning based on your own personal bias while chiding Steve for the very same thing. So when you actually have some “facts” to present other than some random subjective blog, I might take you seriously. Until then, my logic is solid in Zarqawi’s own statements as fact, and all the rest, including your logic or lack thereof and your facts or lack thereof, is worthless baseless spin.

    “as for the mainstream media, i’m sorry but your argument that “a child could figure out” that the american mainstream media is left leaning is as unconvincing as it is unsubstantiated.”

    Well, Zara it’s not much different than your subjective “analysis” which is unconvincing and unsubstantiated. Maybe you could live up to the same standards you set for others by actually presenting the “facts”, and then we all could have a starting basis. BTW, thanks to Steve for providing the link to media bias as I knew he would; it simply wasn’t important enough for me to waste my time on given zara’s obvious dislike of America.

    “ US may have the freest political system in the world but that is unfortunately coupled with the most sophisticated propaganda machine in the form of your corporate media (and possibly education system). back to the point i believe steve was making about ‘military sources’ and i guess embedded ‘journalists’ – respected (actual) journalists have raised some serious concerns about the validity of such sources. “

    Well, with the exception of the political system, the same generalization could be made of a lot of countries; so what? It is exactly because we live in one of the freest systems in the world and are exposed to all sides of an issue that Americans don’t see a conspiracy or the boogeyman in everything the way some other people might. The government, the military and the media are all open to suspicion exactly as Steve has told you; they are all pieces of the puzzles to Americans no matter how YOU may wish to paint it otherwise for the purposes of validating yourself.

  49. Anon

    While I can understand you not believing the manner he was killed (I can respect that)let me run this past you. If I am Zarqawi I am going to pick the most safe place to be. And within that place I am going to pick the most fortified area in that place. I know I am hunted and I have seen the CNN footage of what the US can do with laser targeting. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that this safe was “beefed” up a bit in an effort to withstand such an attack. It is also not without possibly that the bombs could have been a little off either in direction and perhaps the bombs for some reason did not blow up as expected. Perhaps they where partial duds. Steve would know far more about that.

    Remember 9-11. Some Firemen survived one of the towers falling down on them as they took cover under a concrete stairwell. Strange things can happen.

    I do know air currents can do funny things and under the extreme pressure like a bomb blast Zarqawi could have been blown clear of the blast just enough for him to cling to life. I have seen a tornado rip one side of a street to shreds and leave the other side untouched. Including debris. I have read first hand accounts of people being picked up by a tornado and sat down gently like there where a baby. Maybe Zarqawi was outside and not in the direct blast zone. What we do know is he is dead. I don’t see many good reasons for the US Military to lie about what happened. I don’t see what they would gain. Maybe they did but regardless he is dead and to me that is all that matters.

    ps Why don’t you register. It makes for a better converstaion!

  50. Anon: “Yes, bombs DO make CRATERS! You missed my point interpretting that I was denying there was a crater. The fact that there IS such a crater rules out a Zarqawi corpse that is intact.”

    Actually, I’ve answered that question above in my previous post. You avoid addressing the reasons I present why Zarqawi could survive intact, presumably because you can’t.

    Also, the fact that Zarqawi was found buried in the rubble tends to support the idea that he was sheltered by some structure in the house. Obviously, the rubble on top of him was the structure between him and the bomb. Were Zarqawi at the point of impact, he would have been projected clear of the rubble in pieces that would have come to rest on top, body parts being lighter than masonry and prone to fly higher and farther.

    Occam’s Razor favors the simplest explanation, that Zarqawi died in the house from the bombs dropped on him. Your conspiracy theory is rather convoluted and built entirely of conjecture without a bit of evidence to support it, as is the practice of conspiracy theorists. You have not proven your case.

    Steve

  51. Cerebral Waste: “I know I am hunted and I have seen the CNN footage of what the US can do with laser targeting. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that this safe was “beefed” up a bit in an effort to withstand such an attack. It is also not without possibly that the bombs could have been a little off either in direction and perhaps the bombs for some reason did not blow up as expected. Perhaps they where partial duds.”

    I doubt that the safe house was fortified against the US military, though it’s possible that some part of it was strongly built as a defense against casual violence in general. When US forces attacked the private residence where Uday and Qusay had hidden, I was amazed at how well it stood up to the ordnance thrown at it. If you were to launch a Javelin anti-tank missile at the ordinary American home, it would pretty well demolish it. However, a Javelin fired at the Husseins’ hideout only knocked a chunk off it. So perhaps some part of this safe house, located out in the boonies, was just as well built as a defense against local criminals.

    That first bomb from the gun video was no dud. That blast was about the volume that I would expect. There is no gun video of the second bomb but I’m assuming it struck on target, too. It was a clear day and a well defined target. An easy shot.

    The first bomb was laser-guided, the second a JDAM (GPS-guided). Laser-guided bombs are more accurate in good weather. JDAMs are slightly less accurate, and less expensive. My guess is that they wanted to drop a second bomb to make sure, which is good practice, but didn’t want to waste another silver bullet.

    If you are an insurgent being hunted by the US, holing up in bunkers is a bad idea. There’s no chance you will defeat a US attack by bunkering up, especially in a light bunker. Your best strategy is to stay light and keep moving. Saddam was good at that. In the first Gulf War, he drove around in an RV until US intel identified the make of the RV and our air assets began hunting it. He began moving every three hours with his bodyguards in a small number of cars, picking private residences at random to crash in at night. He was smarter than his sons in the second Gulf War, staying out of the city where informants could rat him out, holing up in nondescript rural houses with prepared spiderholes if things got hot.

    Zarqawi was following a pretty good evasion strategy. He was caught because he ticked off the Jordanians enough to pursue him and because he was overmatched in resources.

    Steve

  52. Jared in NYC says:

    Glad we got him. Hope we get more like him. I don’t know if continued effort will eventually restore the rule of law in Iraq, but I think we have an obligation to stay and try. The people there are enduring hell, and the US should do whatever is possible to make it better.

    Jared

  53. Steve

    Just as a side note you should read this: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1202929,00.html

    It talks about the construction of the house.

  54. zara says:

    Steve The American
    Okay.

    1- Regarding your “evidence” of left wing ‘media bias’ in the US (LOLLL) the link you sent me shows that 47 percent of journalists now said they were “liberal,” while only 22 percent labeled themselves as “conservative.” Does Ghaddafi call himself a madman? Does George Bush call himself a murderer?

    Tony Blair identifies his government as being “centre left”. Any self respecting (or genuine) ‘labour’ voter or left winger would seriously contest this (and probably be quite insulted too). My point is, the site you sent does not have a very credible or sophisticated way of making these claims.

    I recommend you look at some of the analysis provided by a reputable organisation that is dedicated to media analysis: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101

    Without going into too much detail, i also think there is really something to be said for the way the parameters of ‘left’ and ‘right’ are laid out. it’s quite difficult to explain briefly, but a good analogy is this: for kids who listen to mainstream music, avril lavigne may seem to be ‘alternative’. in actual fact, avril falls quite neatly within the some boundaries of mass manufactured pop music as britney spears – it’s just a different sound she’s making. but if britney is right and avril is left then what about genuine ‘alternative music’? basically the boundaries are defined so that there in a certain bandwidth there is very little difference between the right wing and left (eg – the conservative and tony blair’s ‘labour’ party in the uk)

    for a rigorous and compelling argument check this out: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufacturing_Consent.html

    okay next, Michael Berg. I wasn’t espousing his views/ i’m not particularly interested in his psychology/ alleged stalinist leanings/ i am interested in his perspective as a human being, a grieving father and someone who has been cheated by your government.

    i was 1) pointing out an ACTUAL left wing site to you. 2) when he questions whether zarqawi exists – or perhaps, less literally interpreted, whether he really is the all-powerful demon king the US media makes him out to be, I think the salient point he is making is that he does not know what to believe anymore, and i’m sure he is not alone in this.

    Even the most rational minded people I think are befuddled by a) the lies being propagated about this ‘war on terror’ and all its decibels and b) your president’s incompetence in basic communication skills

    And the WMDs. The three main reasons to sell the war to the public were: the imminent danger posed by Iraq’s alleged WMD, the alleged Saddam (who bin laden once described as an ‘apostate’ and http://www.harpers.org/HarpersIndex2004-05.html#20040601-136550740400) – Al Qaeda relationship and Saddam’s link to the events of 9/11/2001. i think we all remember colin powells laser pointer presentation.

    Would the US really attack a country with nuclear capacity? And as for ‘Iraq’s’ (not that the iraqi’s had any say in this) noncompliance with UN resolutions was your war in Iraq carried out in compliance with the UN?? So let me get this straight — in response to Saddam’s non compliance with UN resolutions, you invaded their country without complying with UN standards/ resolutions. I guess Iraq was not the only outlaw or rogue state in the international community.

    Whatever perfume bottle plans or small stockpiles you did find, do you think that justifies this hideous war and its sickening (and still increasing) death toll?? And do you think this illegal war was the only way to get rid of them?

    Thought you might find this interesting too: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1336

    As for your suspicion about a big swimming pool buried in the desert full of WMDs (thats some oasis you’re hallucinating about) a suspicion does NOT justify such a dangerous and bloody war to me.

    Saddam and bin Laden:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html – what’s amazing is this is taken from one of your own more conservative (though probably not as conservative as you!) newspapers and details the findings of the 9-11 commissions.
    As for the purported intelligence: i have seen reports of meetings dating back to 1998 but no follows. if it was as serious as the masters of war would suggest, i wonder it wasn’t a bigger deal – until of course it was roped into back up reasons to go to war in Iraq. And interestingly enough, i wonder how much MORE al qaeda activity there is in iraq now as opposed to before your great war.

    Guantanamo Bay: Only ten detainees have been charged with crimes and more than 200 have been released or transferred to their home countries, many as free and presumably innocent men. The US military has said itself that there are innocent men at Guantanamo.

    According to a US department of defense report more than 80% of prisoners were handed over by afghan or pakistani bounty hunters and not caught because of any investigation or evidence against them.
    Former prisoners have released reports describing debasing prison conditions and treatment by officials, including physical abuse, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, force feeding, and psychological mistreatment.

    Many of these claims have been repeated by FBI and prison staff. please see Human Rights Watch (www.hrw.org) or Amnesty International (www.amnesty.org)

    I’m curious to why you bring up al qaeda treatment of captives. I don’t think it’s anything you should aspire to, steve. if you’re suggesting they treat pows badly and u have the right to do so too, for your troops sake i wouldnt make that argument. al qaeda did not invade afghanistan and then round up a random selection of muslim men and ship them off to some lawless detainment camp on legally baseless accusations.

    Oh my, if we go into “Well, if you were an Iraqi Shiite, it meant that there was no chance anymore that Saddam would load you into buses with everyone you knew and execute you en masse in the desert.”
    i’ll save the 1,000 words : http://www.diosa.net/art-net/RumsfeldHussein.jpg

    if you were really worried about the shias you wouldnt have backed saddams ascent to power and continued to back him throughout his worst abuses (against the kurds and his own people), you wouldn’t have encouraged the shias to revolt against his brutal oppression and then left them to die at his hands. if you really were interested in justice, especially for the shias, your government wouldnt be so supportive of governments that discriminate (putting it lightly) against the shia and oppress them – governments such as Bahrain’s.

    you should read some robert fisk (when you’re done bombing people that is).

    “One thing that this victory ensures is that Zarqawi will not feature you in his next snuff video.” says steve. and i’m the one looking for boogeymen. i’m not paranoid (or stupid) he aint under my bed. and ill tell you this much, your disastrous war on terror certainly hasnt made me (or the iraqis) any safer from murderers like zarqawi. your tactics and logic are fundamentally flawed.

    And since we have now reached your puerile and reprehensible islamaphobic comments about ’72 virgins’ i will finish here.

    if you want a link to prove the shameless comments about the three men who your military says hanged themselves please go to any major news channel. or if they are too ‘left leaning’ ask colleen graffy or mike bumgarner for copies of their statements following the deaths.

    furnish your own fucking comments with a link, steve, because as to the prison ‘riot’ THIS is what i read: http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=13995

    i am happy enough to be called naive.
    you are disgusting, and this conversation is over.

  55. Thanks, that was an interesting article, especially this part:

    “The house, made of cinder blocks and reinforced concrete,…”

    Reinforced concrete is concrete with rebar, very strong stuff. That’s what Uday & Qusay’s hideout was made of – you could see the rebar poking out of the holes where the concrete was knocked off. If reinforced concrete was between Zarqawi and the blast, that would explain why he was intact.

    And one of the chicks was his 16-year-old wife. He was 39, the old lecher. They’ll be spending their honeymoon in hell.

    Steve

  56. billT says:

    Anon’s act of war statment came from Rear Adm. Harry Harris, commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo.

    “They are smart. They are creative. They are committed. They have no regard for human life, neither ours nor their own,” Harris said. “I believe this was not an act of desperation, but rather an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us.”

    billT

  57. Anonymous says:

    Cerebral Waste:

    Funny you should mention 911. Here is a link you might check out:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939

    Steve-the-American:

    I see that you are STILL trying to figure out how Zaqari’s corpse remained intact. The original “theory” was that he must have been standing out in the yard. Now he is in a fortified bunker.

    Once again you fall for psychological manipulation when you, inaccurately, call Zarqawi a lecher. The same might be said of Will and Ariel Durant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Durant) who are famous for writing “The Story of Civilization” in 8 or 9 volumes. He was 28 and she was 14 when they were married.

    Now, don’t get me wrong. I support American soldiers and am certainly glad that Zarqawi is dead. I just don’t think the whole thing happened the way it is portrayed…..WAS portrayed…The story keeps changing.

    CW:

    If I hang around long enough, I will register under a handle.

  58. Will says:

    Anonymous

    What would be gained by manipulating the truth regarding Zarqawi’s death?

  59. Steve The American says:

    Here’s the autopsy results in which Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a spokesman for the U.S. military in Baghdad, says Zarqawi survived for 52 minutes after the bomb blast, 24 minutes after coalition troops (presumably the Iraqis) arrived on the scene. Caldwell says Zarqawi died from lung injuries, “It was very evident he had extremely massive internal injuries, …. Blast waves from the two bombs caused tearing, bruising of the lungs and bleeding. There was no evidence of firearm injuries.” Zarqawi had head and facial wounds, bleeding ears, and a broken lower right leg.

    Of course, the lungs are the most sensitive to the overpressure caused by a bomb. The US Army used to teach troops to survive the blast of artillery bombardments by laying on their backs with their mouths open and ankles crossed. I suspect the crossed ankles were to control their sphincters from purging themselves. The open mouth is to allow the air pressure in the lungs to equalize with the ambient air. It’s a weak defense but at least you feel like you have some control.

    So it appears that Zarqawi was shielded from the heat, most of the shrapnel and debris, but not the blast of the bomb. That could happen if he was in an enclosed space that focused the blast but behind a reinforced concrete structure that stopped the fragments and diverted the heat.

    The Time article says that Zarqawi was having a meal when the bomb hit, which implies that he was sitting or laying down. A guy like him probably puts his back in a corner by the side of the door where he can see who enters. If the bomb strikes in the next room and the bottom portion of the home is made of reinforced concrete, he would escape the heat and frag while suffering the overpressure which would trapped briefly (ie milliseconds) in the room until it popped the walls. That high air pressure would tear up Zarqawis lungs and ears. The cinder block walls on top of the reinforced concrete foundation would fall down on him, cutting up his head and breaking his leg. That’s my scenario based on what I’ve read so far.

    As for Zarqawi being a lecher, that is my own original opinion. I’m sure that other people will notice the age difference sooner or later and come to the same conclusion. I wonder how much choice that 16 year old girl had to choose her fate. It seems to me that a head-cutting Muslim mass murder might make for a brutal husband, though undoubtedly he’d be considered quite a catch in Saudi Arabia where murdering people of other religions is cause for celebration.

    And yes, if you are a 28 year old guy, there’s something wrong with you if you’re marrying a 14 year old girl. You should at least wait until she’s come back from the senior prom.

    Steve

  60. Steve The American says:

    Hmmm. It looks like Zarqawi may have fallen prey to American “smart dust“, tiny radio transmitters small as a fleck of dirt that can be planted on people, then tracked by interrogating it via radio. It’s something like the RFID tags on merchandise, but much smaller.

    This just keeps getting better and better.

    Steve

  61. Anonymous says:

    SteveTA:

    Thanks for the link. I don’t have a military folder so I stuffed that in my “Nano” folder. “Nano,” of course, is short for nanotechnology. I expect this article to show up in KurzweilAI Newsletter, which I (free) subscribe to, soon. While it is possible that it went down the “smart dust” way, I seriously doubt it. ‘Far more likely that he would have been tracked by live assets in my opinion.

    Personally, I think he was killed by his handlers and placed at the scene.

    What was Zarqawi’s last meal? Perhaps it’s just me, but I see no mention of foodstuffs retreived from his gut/throat in this article.

  62. Anonymous says:

    Will: “What would be gained by manipulating the truth regarding Zarqawi’s death?”

    My premise is that Zarqawi was an agent provocateur sent to instigate and maintain a level of violence in Iraq. As his usefulness decreased, his value as a dead man increased. He was killed to increase Bush’s ratings in the polls (I voted for Bush to show support for our troops.) and to detract from possible media coverage of the coincident Bilderberg meeting in Ottawa.

    Given this, it was imperative that a dead Zarqawi corpse be presented to the public; one that required less plastic surgery than Saddam’s sons did to make them recognizeable. Therefore, Zarqawi was killed and planted at the scene.

    This truth had to be manipulated to prevent armed revolt against the little(BIG?) men behind that curtain over there.

  63. Anonymous says:

    Zara,

    if you were really worried about the shias you wouldnt have backed saddams ascent to power

    Saddam is responsible for Saddam’s ascent to power. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussain#Consolidation_of_power

  64. M says:

    “This truth had to be manipulated to prevent armed revolt against the little(BIG?) men behind that curtain over there. ”

    Let me guess? You’re a Hollywood writer out of work with too much time on your hands. Besides, the whole world knows it was the Easter Bunny behind that Zarqawi mask, and he got his for such a disasterous egg hunt on the White House lawn this year because W had to let some gay couples with kids in on the hunt. Thought you’d have figured that out weeks ago. No wonder you are out of work!

  65. Anonymous says:

    M: You asked a question and I answered it. I suggest that, in the future, you do not ask questions that you do NOT want answered or, at the very least, that you do not insult the character of those who answer the questions that you ask of them.

    No, I have NOTHING to do with Hollywood and despise that hive of out-of-touch liberals. No one knows for sure WHO was behind the Zarqawi mask but it was probably Zarqawi.

    I have NEVER believed in the Easter Bunny though I did hunt quite a few Easter eggs when I was a child. I also never believed in the Tooth Fairy though I received financial compensation for placing my pulled baby teeth under my pillow before going to sleep during self same childhood. Furthermore, as an adult, I have learned to dispense with other imaginary friends such as Jesus Christ.

    Also, I have watched the World Game being played from behind the scenes for the last 35 plus years. I have come to realize that most, if not all, war-like conflicts consist of the same puppet master manipulating both sides from behind the stage.

    While you are certainly free to disagree with me and state your opinions in such matters, please have the decency to respect those who have reached a far different interpretation of world events than you have.

    My search began when I read the following book in 1975:

    http://reactor-core.org/none-dare.html

  66. Jared in NYC says:

    M, you’re definitely on to something here:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1366547/posts

    Jared

  67. Will says:

    Anonymous

    And so the US, after reaching such dizzying heights of power and having no suitable adversary have begun attacking themselves and funding their own opposition. Sounds like Inspector Clouseau and his faithful manservant Cato.

  68. Anonymous says:

    Will: The “US” is a corporation set up in 1871 (http://www.teamlaw.org/DCOA-1871.pdf). Perhaps you are refering to “the United States of America.” This entity is no longer in (what is called) legal memory.

    I refer you to Black’s Law Dictionary; which is available in a law library but is not available online. A new edition of this comes out whenever the legal paradigm changes. Presently, volume eight is current. The last one to define “United States of America” was volume six. That’s the one with a red cover, the official color for signifying serving legal notice.

    Read and enjoy. But remember: Ignorance is bliss.

  69. Anonymous says:

    Continuing:
    Will: The “United States” is a tool of the international moneyed interests that set up entities such as the United Nations and the International Monetary fund which the Untied States was quit claimed to in 1944 via the Bretton Woods agreement.

    The money changers have tried to take over America since the git-go. One of the earliest cases was when John Adams, as sitting second President, designated George Washington as Commander-in-Chief. This was done in anticipation of war with France. George Washington passed the title to Alexander Hamilton.

    Hamilton represented banking interests and came close to imposing martial law and becoming dictator/king. Fortunately, President Adams’ diplomatic skills averted war with France and staid Hamilton’s hand.

    How well do you know American history?

  70. M says:

    Jared,

    See, I told you that Easter Bunny gets around and causes more trouble than he’s worth.

    Anonymous,

    I think you are a little confused. I didn’t ask you anything; Will did. I did however make fun of your opinion and probably will again.

  71. Anonymous says:

    M:

    Oops.

    “I’m sorry, Mister Garrison. I got confused.”
    –David Ferrie, the movie “JFK”

  72. Anonymous: “My premise is that Zarqawi was an agent provocateur sent to instigate and maintain a level of violence in Iraq. As his usefulness decreased, his value as a dead man increased. He was killed to increase Bush’s ratings in the polls (I voted for Bush to show support for our troops.) and to detract from possible media coverage of the coincident Bilderberg meeting in Ottawa.”

    Obviously Zarqawi was an alien being, part of an extraterrestial conspiracy. The proof is everywhere, everywhere! For example, Zarqawi’s Martian-like contempt for human life demonstrates that he is not of this world. Humans are like bugs to him.

    Also, look at where Zarqawi the Martian Man hid out: In a house far away from town, hidden by date palms. It’s obviously picked to conceal the landing of flying saucers. I mean really, there are sightings of UFOs in the US all the time but not one, not ONE sighting in Iraq. Obviously, this is due to a vast coverup, fomented by Martians with brain-wiping rays, just like them there ones I saw on that movie, “Men in Black.” The conspiracy is as plain as the nose on your face.

    Look how hard it was to find him. Any fool can see he was being teleported back and forth from Iraq to the mother ship then back to Iraq. That’s why we had to call in the F-16s to take him out from the air instead of taking him on the ground with troops. At the first hint of trouble, he would beamed out of there. Poof!

    Furthermore, Zarqawi was still alive after the bombs fell on him, which is proof that he had a force field generator just like those ones in “War of the Worlds,” the prototype for the Martian invasion, that protected him. Who but Martians have these? Nobody!

    Obviously, my conspiracy theory is much better than yours. I double dog dare you to prove that Zarqawi was NOT a Martian who landed in a UFO. You can’t, can you? That proves my point.

    It’s bigger than Bilderberg or Skull & Bones or Hangar 18 or the crazy Venusians who shot JFK. It’s a vast Martian conspiracy that’s everywhere, in the air, in our water, even in the eggs we eat for breakfast. They walk among us.

    Steve

  73. M says:

    No problem, Anon.

  74. billT says:

    Anon Have you turned your social security card in yet?

    billT

  75. zara says:

    Anonymous –
    i didn’t say the US was responsible for saddam’s ascent to power I said the US backed his ascent.

    Mind you there are suggestions about a cia backed coup which brought him to the helm of the baath party. i don’t know enough about to comment on, except to say that it wouldn’t have been the first, http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2003/0410saddam.htm

    And all this outrage from US politicians about Saddam’s murderous policies against his own and other peoples is a sick joke:

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm
    http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/29/155243 or
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

  76. Anonymous says:

    Steve the American,

    If you can’t run with the big dogs then stay on the porch. There is no such thing as Jesus (or Mohammed) either. Get used to it.

  77. Anonymous says:

    billT:

    No. I am on mental disability. I need my social security card to receive my monthly check.

  78. Anonymous: “There is no such thing as Jesus (or Mohammed) either. Get used to it.”

    Well, that makes as much sense as anything else you’ve written.

    Steve

  79. Zara: “i didn’t say the US was responsible for saddam’s ascent to power I said the US backed his ascent.”

    Saddam killed and intimidated his own way to the top, just as many other Arab dictators have done. He did it pretty much like Stalin rose in the Communist Party in Russia. He sucked up to the people in charge, methodically undermined them, and then took over.

    Zara: “Mind you there are suggestions about a cia backed coup which brought him to the helm of the baath party. i don’t know enough about to comment on, except to say that it wouldn’t have been the first,”

    It wouldn’t be the first time an Arab Muslim took power in a bloody coup, which happens far more frequently. It wouldn’t be the first time Arabs tried to shift the blame for their own bloody politics to outsiders, either, no matter how improbable.

    How I wish the CIA was as all powerful as you fantasize, able to pull the strings of other countries at will. The reality is that in the typical Middle Eastern country, there is only a handful of CIA officers in the US embassy. They very often are clueless about what’s going on in the country.

    When the Iranian students took over the US embassy in Teheran in 1979, there were only three CIA agents stationed in the embassy. None of them could speak Farsi. They had no idea what was going on in Iran. They were there to spy on the Soviet Union.

    The reality is that in Middle Eastern dictatorships, it is extraordinarily hard for American intelligence agents to operate, to even collect information let alone direct events. We’re lucky if we clearly understand what happenned even after it happenned, let alone before, despite the fevered imaginations of Arabs who see CIA agents under their beds.

    Zara: “And all this outrage from US politicians about Saddam’s murderous policies against his own and other peoples is a sick joke:

    I imagine it is difficult to believe the US can be outraged about the mass murder of Arab Muslims at the hands of Arab Muslim dictators when Arab Muslims feel no such outrage themselves.

    Steve

  80. Lujayn says:

    Steve said: We’re lucky if we clearly understand what happenned even after it happenned, let alone before, despite the fevered imaginations of Arabs who see CIA agents under their beds.

    Glad to know the CIA is clueless, before, during and after. That doesnt stop them from meddling though, does it? However, I agree, we Arabs do tend to blame EVERYTHING on the US, when theres plenty to blame locally. However, given the fact that the US does get involved, one way or the other, in regional politics, its not improbable that it makes mistakes, knowingly and unknowingly. Can we blame the US then, or is it still off-limits?

  81. zara says:

    oh steve

    “Saddam killed and intimidated his own way to the top, just as many other Arab dictators have done. He did it pretty much like Stalin rose in the Communist Party in Russia. He sucked up to the people in charge, methodically undermined them, and then took over.”

    Was your country a friend and supporter of Saddam or not?

    “It wouldn’t be the first time Arabs tried to shift the blame for their own bloody politics to outsiders, either, no matter how improbable.”

    well it wouldnt be the first time western interference created the bloody politics in the arab world.. and its not just us – Venezuela anyone??

    you need to quit trying to talk to me, and do some serious reading on the history of the middle east.

    i would recomment ‘the great war for civilisation’ by someone who’s actually been there, robert fisk.

    “I imagine it is difficult to believe the US can be outraged about the mass murder of Arab Muslims at the hands of Arab Muslim dictators when Arab Muslims feel no such outrage themselves.”

    What little you clearly know about arabs and muslims. perhaps you are talking about our governments, many of which are tacit;y and openly supported by your own?

    It’s not difficult to believe your government is ‘outraged’, based on its foreign policy and actions it is actually inconceivable. Because their dangerous and callous policies are a REALITY.

  82. Lujayn: “Glad to know the CIA is clueless, before, during and after. That doesnt stop them from meddling though, does it? However, I agree, we Arabs do tend to blame EVERYTHING on the US, when theres plenty to blame locally. However, given the fact that the US does get involved, one way or the other, in regional politics, its not improbable that it makes mistakes, knowingly and unknowingly. Can we blame the US then, or is it still off-limits?”

    Lujayn, the CIA didn’t see the collapse of the Soviet Union coming, and that’s a pretty big event with plenty of clues, if they had good spies. They didn’t see Iraq invading Kuwait until it happenned. They didn’t know Saddam had an atom bomb except for the fuel in the first Gulf War. They thought that atom bomb program had continued up to the second Gulf War, when later it was discovered to be in hiatus.

    If I’m paying good tax money to have spies in the Middle East, I’m not getting my money’s worth. That’s especially relevant now when considering Iran’s atomic bomb program.

    From what I’ve read of the CIA, it tried more than a few times to change national governments in the Third World. In most cases it made a hash of things and their efforts failed with bad results. In the case of Iran and one central American country (Honduras, I think), they were able to change the government. In both cases, while the short term effect was good, the long term effect was profoundly negative for the US. The lesson the old heads at the CIA have learned is that it is not in the interest of the US to try to depose hostile governments. You can see that in the foreign policy of the Carter administration, which accepted the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 rather than trying to fight it, though it didn’t do us any good.

    I think the CIA approach now is to stay in contact with all parties in Middle Eastern countries, those in which it has a presence, to collect info and hedge its bets. There’s no telling who will come out in top in the chaotic politics of the Middle East. What meddling we’re doing are things like supplying money and communications equipment to Iranian dissident groups, which is fairly mild stuff.

    However, almost all of the stuff that is screwed up in the Middle East is screwed up by locals. Arabs use the CIA as the bogeyman to take the blame for all their screw ups. While it’s foolish slander to blame America for everything, it hurts you more than us. If you don’t acknowledge the legitimate causes of problems, they can never get fixed. Blaming the CIA for your government’s incompetence is easier than actually rollling up your sleeves and solving the problems.

    Steve

  83. Aliandra says:

    Zara;

    There is no doubt that there has been some US interference, particularly with supporting the Shah of Iran, which I am not going to defend. However, the biggest killers of middle-eastern people are other middle-eastern people. The slaughter of some 20,000 civilians in Hama by the Syrian government, Iraq’s wars against Iran, Kuwait, its killings of Shiites and Kurds, the Algerian and Lebanese civil wars that left over 100,00 dead, and now the massacres in Darfur. These atrocities were fomented by territorial disputes, oil, or religious and political hatreds– not the CIA, US, or Israelis.

    Except for Afghanistan and Iraq, the US doesn’t have it’s armies roaming about your countries keeping your bad governments in power. Verbal or political support of a government, even one as bad as Saudi Arabia, doesn’t keep it in power. Despite all the condemnation of NOrth Korea, the Dear Leader manages to remain comfortably in power. However, the US does deserve condemnation for continuing to give cash to the less-than-ideal Mubarak government.

    Venezuela is responsible for Venezuela’s bloody politics. The US provided verbal approval only of the attempted coup – no soldiers, weapons, or money.

  84. Lujayn says:

    Steve, that simplistic, oft-repeated view is held by only a few here, not counting yourself. We do not hold the US responsible for all our problems. We hold ourselves, our governments and our leaders responsible for most of our problems.

    However, given US involvement in many of the crises, whether directly or indirectly, in the region, it is unlikely that is is always the altruistic, infallible power you make it to be.

    Besides, if we are so incapable of any analytical thinking that we fail to see any shortcomings and screw ups done on our part, why do you even bother with us? You figure you’ll show us the light? Not once have you suggested ways we can work together on improving relationships. Not once have you shown an interest in trying to understand individuals here.

  85. Lujayn says:

    Even to my own eyes, that last part sounded soppy. Sorry! 🙂

  86. mahmood says:

    but on the mark…

  87. Anonymous says:

    “Well, that makes as much sense as anything else you’ve written.”

    Steve:

    I just made a logical and easy observation. If you disagree with my reasoning on this, then I challenge you to present yours.

    Yet, I know that you can’t because you have none. Belief in such imaginary beings (ghosts) is the ultimate in letting fear motivate one’s self to succumb to the collective (herd…sheep).

    Get back up on the porch, Steve.

  88. Anonymous says:

    Steve (et al):

    “I think the CIA approach now is to stay in contact with all parties in Middle Eastern countries…”

    It is the international fiat currency banking crime syndicate (IMF, UN) that is playing both sides. They do it through whatever channels are available to them whether it be the CIA, MI6, Saudis, Chicoms or whoever.

    “Follow the money.”
    —Deep Throat, the movie “All the President’s Men”

  89. zara says:

    Aliandra,

    “Some” US interference is the understatement of the century. I’m glad you’re willing to acknowledge some of your country’s ‘strategic interests’.

    Well with the policies running the way they were, there’s no need for the US to be the “biggest killers of middle-eastern people” – which by the way i never claimed – just foment the divides (whether its rich and poor, sunni and shia, or as most common oppresser and oppressed) and let them take care of each other.

    “These atrocities were fomented by territorial disputes, oil, or religious and political hatreds– not the CIA, US, or Israelis.”

    Whoa, who brought in the israelis? i thought it was us “middle easterners” that brough the israeli twist into everything.
    that said i’m glad you brought it up, because you conveniently left it out of your previous list of admissions about your governments shameful middle eastern relations- a brutal and racist government maintaining a 40 year plus illegal occupation, not to mention the day to day humiliations and deaths.

    “Except for Afghanistan and Iraq, the US doesn’t have it’s armies roaming about your countries keeping your bad governments in power.”

    In spite of the increasing number of military outposts ALL over the world, i don’t recall making any such statement. That said though, you don’t need roaming armies to keep a bad government in power. And interestingly enough, i wonder who provides ‘anti terror’ training to bahrain special security forces (the armed wing to protect the ‘status quo’). yes that’s right it’s those wonder boys over at the fifth fleet base. you shouldn’t reqad everything so literally. you need to leave room for subtlety and nuances in your understanding.

    You don’t need to have armies dancing around all over the map to make your point and more dangerously, make your impact.

    Let me give you an example. britain continued to sell, and even increased their arms sales to the indonesian government while the indonesian government were busy massacring the people of east timor.

    no need for the british army to be there at all, just the good old spirit of blighty. fair enough to say one middle easterner killed the other. my question is do you not care who gave them the guns? or shall i say, continued to give one side guns while condemning the whole situation… ten years later.
    I recommend you read the chequebook and the cruise missile by arundhati roy.

    my other recommendation is that you lay down your defensiveness for a second, and try not to interpret my comments as ‘anti-american’ or ‘blame the americans’ as you seem to imply.

    my critique is of power, its breadth depth and the devastation it causes when it is left unfettered. and your government has a lot of it.
    and so according to your own system there should be constant balances and checks on this power, or have you forgotten or forfeited that right for the sake of this ghastly war on terror?

    and for me, i see the same power dyanamics echo into microcosms, from international politics to local politics to institutions (businesses, schools), families and relationships. and i have no respect for power. i have respect for people.

    i would apply the same critique to my own government, any government and any institution with vested power. and i would never suggest that anyone else would act any differently if in the same position as the us (except maybe buddah). power corrupts and total power corrupts totally.

    ps -sorry, what was that you were saying about ‘not’ having armies roaming all over the world apart from afghanistan and iraq? because you should cruise by juffair sometimes lol

  90. Sally says:

    “my critique is of power, its breadth depth and the devastation it causes when it is left unfettered. ”

    That’s right, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Said differently, might does not make right (no pun intended).

  91. Anonymous: “It is the international fiat currency banking crime syndicate (IMF, UN) that is playing both sides. They do it through whatever channels are available to them whether it be the CIA, MI6, Saudis, Chicoms or whoever.”

    You’re wasting our time. Shoo.

    Steve

  92. Lujayn: “Steve, that simplistic, oft-repeated view is held by only a few here, not counting yourself. We do not hold the US responsible for all our problems. We hold ourselves, our governments and our leaders responsible for most of our problems.”

    I rarely hear that from the Middle East, Lujayn, where fantastic conspiracy theories featuring the US is the norm.

    Lujayn: “However, given US involvement in many of the crises, whether directly or indirectly, in the region, it is unlikely that is is always the altruistic, infallible power you make it to be.

    Lujayn, once when I was stationed in the Philippines, I found a gekko in my bedroom in the house I rented off base in an American suburb. It was a beautiful green little thing. I wanted to look at it so I chased it across the room where it hid under my door. I knelt down and cupped my hand to grab it, then whisked the door back. The floor was uneven and the bottom of the door was unfinished and rough, which ripped the skin off the back of the gekko. To my horror, the gekko was writhing in agony on the floor. All I wanted to do was look at it.

    I think that incident is much like the relationship between the US and many Third World countries. We are so big, strong, and wealthy that we inadvertently affect smaller, weaker, poorer countries for better and worse no matter how carefully we move. Even with the best intentions, we can inadvertently destroy and disrupt. Even when we bring nothing but good things, we can disrupt foreign societies by inadvertently making some people rich or giving one segment of society more power. We can turn things upside down without even trying. Nobody can foresee all the effects of such interactions with other countries and cultures, let alone manage them.

    Before you heap your blame on America, Lujayn, put yourself in our place. Could you spend a day managing your behavior so well that you could control the indirect effects of it a degree removed, three degrees removed? Walk in my shoes down some Third World street where every eye is upon you and every move and gesture you make confirms or exacerbates some existing prejudice. Just carrying a camera can incite envy of the Rich American.

    If you form a business relationship with a foreign guy, he profits wildly from you to the point that he becomes slavishly dependent on you and the object of jealousy of his peers. Can you be a perfect angel in this situation, not taking advantage of it, even inadvertently? What if every foreign woman you met wanted to marry you, knowing that it would lift her up to unimaginable wealth for her and provide a ticket for her entire family to enter America, the Land of the Big BX. Can you say that you could behave properly, ignoring all temptation and offering no insult even by negligence?

    Even the best people don’t lead perfect lives. When you have more money and power and education than other people, it amplifies errors that, if everyone was equal, would pass without harm nor notice.

    Lujayn: “Besides, if we are so incapable of any analytical thinking that we fail to see any shortcomings and screw ups done on our part, why do you even bother with us? You figure you’ll show us the light?

    I guess I’m just a glass half full kind a guy, Lujayn.

    Like anyone who makes excuses or shifts blame, most people deep down know the real score. People from the Middle East are no different.

    I’m reading this book about the Iranian hostage crisis, “Guests of the Ayatollah.” One of the hostages was a visa applications officer who told about an incident a couple months before the Iranian students took over the embassy. He was in a car that stopped at a roadblock manned by militia. When they saw that he was an American, they castigated him for the usual crap about America oppressing the world, and so on. However, when he told them his job was processing visas, their belligerence vanished and they became very friendly, asking them if he could help them get a visa to go to the US. Those Iranian kids knew the real score. Even some of the students holding the diplomats hostage asked them if they could get visas to go to school in America after all that was over. Everybody purported hated the Great Satan but wanted to graduate from Great Satan University and get a job in the Satanic States of America.

    Lujayn: “Not once have you suggested ways we can work together on improving relationships. Not once have you shown an interest in trying to understand individuals here.”

    Not so, Lujayn. The first thing the Middle East can do to improve the relationship with America and the West is to stop encouraging Muslims to murder non-Muslims. The constant uncovering of murderous plots in America, Canada, and Europe by Muslims with links to the Middle East is convincing more and more people that you are our enemies. The second, and related, thing the Middle East can do is to reform your religion so that you don’t indoctrinate your young to hate non-Muslims. That is a self-destructive practice which cuts you off from the world to your manifest detriment and will lead to catastrophe. The third thing is to stop blaming America and the Jews and anyone else who passes by for your problems.

    I can write a longer list, but those three are a good start.

    And Lujayn, I certainly can tell the difference between individuals here. I can tell you’re basically a nice, polite, well-educated girl who is mounting a defense of your country, your culture, your religion, your politics. I can’t fault you for that. Like any of us who compares the common wisdom of our own culture to foreign cultures, it can be uncomfortable to reconcile them, to synthesize them into something higher.

    Steve

  93. 111 says:

    ya be happy and support israel and usa more, thats what arabs are good for
    il3arab karab
    🙂

  94. Sally says:

    “Like any of us who compares the common wisdom of our own culture to foreign cultures, it can be uncomfortable to reconcile them, to synthesize them into something higher.”

    Amen.

    This part also refers to you, Steve … with a change of gender, of course! “I can tell you’re basically a nice, polite, well-educated guy…”

  95. jasra-jedi says:

    steve is the bestest .. just needs some ‘re-education’ and he’ll be a-ok …

    hugs and kisses

  96. Anonymous says:

    Steve: “You’re wasting our time. Shoo.”

    I am not wasting your time, Steve. Only you can do that. However, I see that I am wasting my time.

    I have brought the horse to the water but I can’t make it drink. You probably can’t even see the water because of the blinders you have on. No, let me correct that: an ostrich with it’s head in the sand.

    I know there will come a day when there is a natural disaster or terrorist attack or something. FEMA will send in people like you to disarm and round up people like me for forced relocation and re-education (death) camp internment.

    You will be right there, Steve, like the “good American” you are, working on the front lines for FEMA in an effort to show what a dutiful and “selfless” public servant you are.

    Mark my words, Steve.

    I am bored with this thread.

    —Ta Ta

  97. Aliandra says:

    Zara;

    just foment the divides (whether its rich and poor, sunni and shia, or as most common oppresser and oppressed) and let them take care of each other.

    The worse incidents of the region were fomented by the local people themselves. As a previous poster noted, blaming outsiders hurts you more than it does us.

    use you conveniently left it out of your previous list of admissions about your governments shameful middle eastern relations- a brutal and racist government maintaining a 40 year plus illegal occupation, not to mention the day to day humiliations and deaths.

    Save the crocodile tears. The surrounding countries’ treatment of the Palestinians is almost as shameful as that of the Israelis. Except for Jordan and Lebanon, none of your countries will offer them asylum. Kuwait and several other Gulf states expulsed hundreds of thousands of Palestinian workers during Gulf War 1. The Palestinians get treated like second class citizens in many parts of the region. The hyprocrisy is all the more damning because those countries claim to be most concerned for their welfare.

    fair enough to say one middle easterner killed the other. my question is do you not care who gave them the guns?.

    Weapons do not have minds of their own. They do not possess people and make them go out and slaughter each other. Weapons get bought and sold by every country in the world, and yet most of them manage not to use them against their citizens or their neighbors.

    If people are determined to kill each other, they will. If they don’t have rocket launchers and machine guns, they will use whatever is at hand – machetes, knives, etc, like they did in Rwanda.

    Regards,

  98. zara says:

    aliandra, as to your silghtly insulting post:
    i’m happy to place the blame where it is due. i am also very astute to the ‘invisible hand’ of the outsider, thanks.
    your comment about crocodile tears is as wrongheaded as it is insulting. fair minded people all over the world are sensitive to the palestinian cause, and i happen to be one of them. to say that because of the shameful acts of our governments and your own, we are ‘shedding crocodile tears’ over the sickening behaviour of the israeli army and government is baseless. its also a pathetic way of refusing to address criticisms of israel.
    as for the weapons, are you stupid? my point was that you dont need to have an army in a foreign country to support an oppressive regime, there are ways that western countries become complicit in such crimes against civilians — and the very fitting example i gave was the arms trade. this is an obvious point.
    if you’re under the impression that the world is in the state it is simply because we are all a bunch of crazies “intent on killing each other” there’s very little more i am interested in saying to you.
    i have better faith in humanity than that, and quite frankly i’m sure my energy and goodwill is better devoted elsewhere than arguing with the lunatics that frequent this post.

  99. Aliandra says:

    Zara;

    if you’re under the impression that the world is in the state it is simply because we are all a bunch of crazies “intent on killing each other” there’s very little more i am interested in saying to you.

    You have a point. Humanity isn’t responsible for the screwed up state of the world. It’s the invisible hand of outsiders from Saturn. Could you please ask them to leave us alone? If it weren’t for them, planet Earth would be Nirvana. Thanks in advance, Zara

  100. zara says:

    hahahahahha good one

  101. billT says:

    fair enough to say one middle easterner killed the other. my question is do you not care who gave them the guns?.

    No problem saying who gave them the guns. The Russians have supplied most of the guns used in the middle east.

    billT

  102. zara says:

    the only interesting question posting here has raised so far is “are americans doomed to kill all discussion by interpreting everything literally?”

  103. Sally & Jasra,

    I see that you two are trying to win me over with flattery. Let me tell you right from the beginning that I’m far too experienced in the devious machinations of womenfolk to be so easily manipulated by feminine wiles. Well, most of the time, anyway. I’m very wary of what might compose Jasra’s re-edumacation camp.

    Steve

  104. Here is an interesting, though wrong-headed, article about Zarqawi in The Atlantic which provides much interesting background on his life. He was barely literate, unable to write a comprehensible fatwa without an editor to rewrite it. He sent his father-in-law as a suicide bomber to destroy a mosque and all those pesky Muslims who don’t favor his flavor of Islam. It looks like the Zarqawi family reunions will be fairly small events.

    The author wrongheadedly claims that Zarqawi is an American invention, as if his snuff videos and bloody grandstanding played no part in his infamy. She also promotes the liberal claim that there were no ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam, a tired point easily refuted by this Weekly Standard article.

    I guess in my younger days I would be outraged that the lefties flog a point that is not only so wrong but so easily proven wrong but I’ve long since understood that rhetoric trumps reason on the Left. If Zarqawi were part of Al Qaeda which is working with Saddam then the invasion of Iraq is justified as part of the Global War on Terror and Bush is right. However, for the lefties, Bush is Satan McHitler and anything that justifies his actions must be wrong. Therefore, inconvenient truths must be denied and elaborate alternate realities invented.

    Steve

  105. Will says:

    zara
    the only interesting question posting here has raised so far is “are americans doomed to kill all discussion by interpreting everything literally?”

    Is that a metaphorically rhetorical question?

    When you called the people who post here ‘lunatics’, did you mean that in a literal sense or ?

  106. Zara: “Was your country a friend and supporter of Saddam or not?”

    Friend is too strong a word. We provided some slight support for Saddam when it was in our national interest.

    It’s worth remembering that in his first years of power, Saddam was not much different from his peers ruling other Arab countries. His genocidal pogroms were still in the future. Sure, he was a thug but most Arab dictators are. He had done some stuff which looked promising, like build up the infrastructure, build schools, reduce illiteracy. There was a hope he might turn reformer. Some of the worst dictators start out with public works programs that look like good beginnings: Hitler put Germany back to work, Mussolini made the trains run on time.

    The industrialized world can not ignore the countries which have a near monopoly on oil production. We have to deal with them, for better or worse. We have to buy their oil to run our economies which means we have to have to deal with the Arab dictators who control the oil wells. For us, there are no good choices. There aren’t any good guys in positions of power. They are all bad in different ways and to different degrees. The only substantial reform movement in the Middle East wants to turn the secular dictatorships into worse religious dictatorships.

    When Iraq invaded Iran, we supported both sides with intelligence, mostly to keep the fight even. In Kissinger’s famous phrase, it’s a shame both sides can’t lose. But really, they did, though both declared victory.

    We allowed a small trickle of trade with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Some of the commercial goods we provided, like civilian observation helicopters, were sold to Iraqi internal ministries for ordinary use but transferred after delivery to the military. This amounted to less than 1% of Iraqi military acquisitions. This is dishonestly portrayed as America supporting the Iraqi military establishment.

    If you are looking for friends and supporters of Saddam who didn’t care how many of his own people he slaughtered, look to the Russians who supplied the bulk of his war machine and the Europeans who supplied the rest. The Chinese got a cut later on, after the first Gulf War. Look at the French who had massive oil deals with Saddam and were happy to help him build a nuclear reactor to supply fuel for his atom bombs. Look at the UN officials who were happy to sell out the Iraqi people under sanctions, depriving them of the food and medicine guaranteed under the UN program to stuff their pockets with Saddam’s bribes. The offices of the president of Russia and France got their cut of that, too. Along with George Galloway. Finally, look at all of Saddam’s dictator peers in the Middle East who openly supported him, even paid him off when he made his demands, the Arab press who uttered not a peep of criticism, and the Arab people themselves who continue to support him to this day, no matter how huge his crimes. They’re still rooting for him.

    Steve: “It wouldn’t be the first time Arabs tried to shift the blame for their own bloody politics to outsiders, either, no matter how improbable.”

    Zara: “well it wouldnt be the first time western interference created the bloody politics in the arab world.. and its not just us – Venezuela anyone??”

    What a clever piece of rhetoric to attribute the historic “western interference” of Europe in the Arab world to the US. Are all of us infidels interchangeable in your mind, Zara? Europe, America, all the same? After all, we’re all from the Dar al Harb, right?

    Surely a smart girl like you knows that it was the Europeans who carved up and colonized your world in the first half of the 20th century, not America. American never had colonies in the Middle East and aspires to none. The Europeans kept you colonized, dependent, and divided. Not America. Of course, we can sympathize because the Europeans did the same thing to America. We were well rid of them.

    By contrast, the US made Saudi Arabia a business partner, not a colony, refused to interfere in its internal politics, and made it immensely rich through little effort of the lazy and ignorant Saudis. That is a vast difference in approach. As a result of our benign treatment of Saudi Arabia, the Saudis repaid us with the vilest hatred and mass murder because we are not Muslims.

    The main source of the bloody politics in the Arab world is the primitive Arab inclination to hate anyone who differs from them: other families, other tribes, other flavors of Islam, other religions than Islam. The history of the Arab world is a bloody one aside from outside influences. The trajectory of Arab current events is always toward violence. Peaceful trajectories are rejected violently.

    Your example of Venezuela as an example of US interference is profoundly uninformed and rebuts your assertion. America has made no effort to interfere in Venezuelan politics, despite the desperate pleas of Venezuelans to save them from Hugo Chavez, a budding Castro.

    I was riding home on the subway one night and was chatting with a couple of Venezuelan chicks here training on some kind of airline software. They kept telling me how bad it was with Chavez and asking me when America was going to come and kick him out. When I told them that it wasn’t going to happen, that Venezuela didn’t present a threat to US security, that they would have to fix it themselves, they reacted with a terrible sad silence, like I had just told them they had inoperable cancer.

    America is letting Venezuela follow its own path into catastrophe, led by Chavez. They’re in for a generation of socialist stupidity before they realize how foolish they’ve been. There will be no CIA dirty tricks to overthrow Chavez, no American tanks on the streets of Caracas. If anything, the US is treating Venezuela with benign neglect, allowing it to become a horrible warning to South America of where socialism will take you. The Venezuelans will have nobody to blame but themselves.

    Venezuela will still sell its oil to us because we’re they’re biggest and closest market. Oil is a fungible commodity anyway.

    Zara: “you need to quit trying to talk to me, and do some serious reading on the history of the middle east. i would recomment ‘the great war for civilisation’ by someone who’s actually been there, robert fisk.”

    Robert Fisk is not a historian but rather a British leftist and propagandist who panders wildly to Arab Muslim prejudice. “The Great War for Civilization” is not serious reading nor history, but a polemic. Even the friendly reviews of British leftist media call it a flawed book with many inaccuracies. They point out that Fisk makes a point of saying that journalists such as himself can not be objective.

    Professor Efraim Karsh writes in Commentary: “First there is the problem of simple accuracy. It is difficult to turn a page of The Great War for Civilization without encountering some basic error. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not, as Fisk has it, in Jerusalem. The Caliph Ali, the Prophet Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, was murdered in the year 661, not in the 8th century. Emir Abdullah became king of Transjordan in 1946, not 1921, and both he and his younger brother, King Faisal I of Iraq, hailed not from a “Gulf tribe” but rather from the Hashemites on the other side of the Arabian peninsula. The Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in 1958, not 1962; Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, was appointed by the British authorities, not elected; Ayatollah Khomeini transferred his exile from Turkey to the holy Shiite city of Najaf not during Saddam Hussein’s rule but fourteen years before Saddam seized power. Security Council resolution 242 was passed in November 1967, not 1968; Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, not 1977, and was assassinated in October 1981, not 1979. Yitzhak Rabin was minister of defense, not prime minister, during the first Palestinian intifada, and al Qaeda was established not in 1998 but a decade earlier. And so on and so forth.”

    If Fisk is so sloppy with easily checked details, how can he possibly get the big things right? If anything, Fisk appears to be rather indifferent to facts. If you rely on Fisk for your Middle Eastern history, you will be worse than ignorant than when you began because you will believe things that are false.

    Zara: “What little you clearly know about arabs and muslims. perhaps you are talking about our governments, many of which are tacit;y and openly supported by your own? It’s not difficult to believe your government is ‘outraged’, based on its foreign policy and actions it is actually inconceivable. Because their dangerous and callous policies are a REALITY.”

    Your position is a heads I win, tails you lose proposition. If we deal with existing Arab governments, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, then we are supporting tyranny. If we overthrow tyrants, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, then we are the tyrants. The only constant in such arguments is anti-American bias, which is founded ultimately on Muslim religious bigotry. Nothing America does is acceptable to Arab Muslims because the US is not a Muslim country.

    While America does the heavy lifting in establishing the first democracy in the Arab world, the Arab world outside Iraq enthusiastically supports the insurgents who drive car bombs into crowds of Iraqi civilians, blows up mosques, and beheads innocent people on video. It would hard to beat that for dangerous and callous policies, policies which enjoy popular support from the Arab media and Muslim clergy.

    Steve

  107. M says:

    Artist Merit: Steve 10 Zara 3

    Technical Merit: Steve 10 Zara 0

  108. zara says:

    and so they say, quit while you’re ahead – or in my case when you’re bored.

    I don’t post to engage in mindless nitpicking over the finer details of “anti-americanism”, whatever people who have no other defense believe it means.

    Hoping for intelligent and perhaps enlightening conversation, I have no more to contribute to this discussion + evidently there is nothing to be learned.

    And so adios amigos.

    -Will: i leave you to ponder the mysteries of literal, methaphorical lunacy. maybe alliandra can hook you up with the saturn invadors. or even better have a chat with steve the boorish american about how the US invasion of iraq became “the heavy lifting in establishing the first democracy in the arab world” – now there is a lesson in literal to bullshit rhapsodising.

    -steve: your accusations that i am a ‘muslim bigot’ are misguided at best, and quite frankly a pathetic joke — especially since they follow an earlier post which clearly show the racist and bigoted workings of your own mind.

    i take in the tear jerker about the lizard and the soldier, we, the arabs are the reptile? or is that just the rest of the world? and poor boy soldier just wants to take a look at the strange beasts, bless.
    your right-wing reactionary ramblings are uninspiring. i will only reiterate: our conversation is over.

  109. Zara: “1- Regarding your “evidence” of left wing ‘media bias’ in the US (LOLLL) the link you sent me shows that 47 percent of journalists now said they were “liberal,” while only 22 percent labeled themselves as “conservative.” Does Ghaddafi call himself a madman? Does George Bush call himself a murderer?

    It’s an interesting point you make, Zara. Liberals tend to not consider themselves liberals but mainstream centrists and so consider all conservatives to be extremists. I suspect that many of the self-proclaimed moderate journalists should be added to the tally of leftists.

    By the way, Laughing Out Loud is not much of a rebuttal, especially when there is so much evidence painting journalists as left of center. It comes off as kind of desperate.

    Zara: “Tony Blair identifies his government as being “centre left”. Any self respecting (or genuine) ‘labour’ voter or left winger would seriously contest this (and probably be quite insulted too). My point is, the site you sent does not have a very credible or sophisticated way of making these claims.

    I recommend you look at some of the analysis provided by a reputable organisation that is dedicated to media analysis: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101

    From the FAIR website describing itself: “As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.”

    FAIR is not fair nor reputable, but rather a self-described leftist group providing a socialist critique of the media. Let me translate the lefty-babble: “structural reform” means “revolution;” “dominant media conglomerates” means “capitalists;” “independent public broadcasting” means dedicated socialist propaganda networks paid for by taxing citizens whether they support that political program or not; and “strong non-profit sources of information” means forcing viewers to become a captive audience for socialist propaganda that nobody would pay to watch, ie tedentious crap that nobody values but lefty extremists.

    We do agree that the Blair administration does not fit the traditional definition of Labour, which is socialist. Unfortunately, that kind of far left politics can not win an election now that it has been conclusively and comprehensively demonstrated that socialism doesn’t work. Blair had to move to the right and embrace some capitalism if he wants to win over voters who believe in private property, ie who want to own their own homes and businesses without government interference.

    All the socialists have largely abandoned their traditional rhetoric now that socialism has been revealed as a dishonest brand. That’s another reason why Blair has to ditch the class struggle rhetoric and speak sensibly. That’s why your FAIR site quietly describes itself as progressive rather than socialist and converts its Marxist cant into pseudo-academic language.

    Zara: “okay next, Michael Berg. I wasn’t espousing his views/ i’m not particularly interested in his psychology/ alleged stalinist leanings/ i am interested in his perspective as a human being, a grieving father and someone who has been cheated by your government.”

    Michael Berg was cheated out of his son’s life by Zarqawi, not the US government. Nick Berg, his son, had nothing to do with the US government. He went to Iraq by himself without any interaction at all with the US government, a rather foolish decision in my view, considering how dangerous the environment. It is insane for Michael Berg to blame Bush, Rumsfeld, everyone else but the terrorists who killed his son.

    Bush hatred is the most prominent feature of Michael Berg, so pronounced that he is willing to give his son’s killers a pass so that he could spit venom at Bush. It is a deeply cynical tactic of the Left to use grieving family who agree with their politics to promote their extremist political program, hoping that their personal loss and grief will insulate them from criticism. The Left always seeks to stifle free debate. This is a particularly grotesque method to inject lefty venom into the mainstream and deny its audience the antidote.

    Zara: “i was 1) pointing out an ACTUAL left wing site to you. 2) when he questions whether zarqawi exists – or perhaps, less literally interpreted, whether he really is the all-powerful demon king the US media makes him out to be, I think the salient point he is making is that he does not know what to believe anymore, and i’m sure he is not alone in this.”

    Zara, it is Al Qaeda which sought to portray itself as all-powerful in Iraq through terror. That was the point of all their bombings, beheadings, threats, and propaganda. They tried to scare people away from voting with death threats. When the voters lined up at the polls, they sent suicide bombers to drive them away. Zarqawi tried to puff himself up as somebody who could reach out and touch anybody anywhere, all powerful. Zarqawi’s goal was to leverage his small numbers with terror to optimize his influence. Zarqawi wanted to make himself out as the king of terrorists, not the US.

    By contrast, the entire effort of the US has been to demonstrate that Zarqawi is not the future of Iraq, that he is not that strong nor smart. Those two 500 pound bombs dropped on his head neatly proved that.

    Zara: “Even the most rational minded people I think are befuddled by a) the lies being propagated about this ‘war on terror’ and all its decibels and b) your president’s incompetence in basic communication skills”

    Rational people don’t buy into the lefty propaganda line that the US government is lying all the time everywhere. If anything, the government, especially the military, takes care to convey the truth. It’s quality control is much better than its leftist critics and far better than its Middle Eastern critics who exercise no quality control at all.

    I’ll admit that a silver tongue is not among the gifts Bush brings to his presidency. He’s no Bill Clinton, thankfully. However, he brings the gift of integrity to his speech. As the South Korean president noted, Bush speaks with an iron tongue. He may not say it purty, but he means it. If Bush tells you the Coalition is going to prevail in Iraq, you don’t need to examine what “is” means. Bush has admirably communicated his tenacity to the likes of Zarqawi, who wrote back to Bin Laden that the Americans are not going to leave. That’s some pretty good communicating in my view.

    Zara: “And the WMDs. The three main reasons to sell the war to the public were: the imminent danger posed by Iraq’s alleged WMD, the alleged Saddam (who bin laden once described as an ‘apostate’ and http://www.harpers.org/HarpersIndex2004-05.html#20040601-136550740400) – Al Qaeda relationship and Saddam’s link to the events of 9/11/2001. i think we all remember colin powells laser pointer presentation.””

    I have presented my case elsewhere in this thread that: 1) There were indeed WMDs sufficient to mount the terrorist attack on the US Bush cited as a reason for the war and plans were found in Iraq for exactly such an attack; 2) There is ample evidence of a long-term relationship between Saddam and Bin Laden; and 3) There is evidence of Saddam’s involvement with the Sep 11 attacks in the two meetings of his agents with three of the Sep 11 skyjackers in Prague and Kuala Lumpur.

    Zara: “Would the US really attack a country with nuclear capacity?”

    Yes, if the alternatives were worse.

    Zara: “And as for ‘Iraq’s’ (not that the iraqi’s had any say in this) noncompliance with UN resolutions was your war in Iraq carried out in compliance with the UN?? So let me get this straight — in response to Saddam’s non compliance with UN resolutions, you invaded their country without complying with UN standards/ resolutions. I guess Iraq was not the only outlaw or rogue state in the international community.”

    Nobody contests the fact that Iraq violated the nineteen UN resolutions intended to control its aggression. The only thing in doubt was the UN will to enforce its resolutions. We know now that Saddam had bribed high-ranking UN officials and governments (France, Russia) sitting on the UN, enough to block any military action against Iraq. Your argument seems to imply that we should honor these bribes as well even in the face of possible terrorist attack against ourself. Or perhaps you think we should engage in a bidding war with Saddam to outbribe the UN to enforce its resolutions.

    The approved solution is for the UN to enforce the resolutions it made to control Saddam’s aggression. Controlling regional bullies like Saddam is exactly why the UN exists. When it loses its nerve to face down the Saddams of the world or it sells its mission out for personal gain, the UN makes itself a joke. The confrontation with Saddam was a “High Noon” moment, where the corrupt UN avoided enforcing its own resolutions, representing the common will of the world, leaving the US as the only party with the will and the guts to lay down the law to the bad guy and his gang.

    Zara: “Whatever perfume bottle plans or small stockpiles you did find, do you think that justifies this hideous war and its sickening (and still increasing) death toll?? And do you think this illegal war was the only way to get rid of them?”

    Some 30,000 Iraqis died in the US invasion which ended Saddam’s bloody reign. Half a million died under Saddams rule, hundreds of thousands of them buried in mass graves after being executed en masse. Which death toll is more sickening to you, Zara?

    The only illegal war fought in Iraq is the one Saddam was waging against the UN forces for over a decade. May I point out that Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush the elder with a car bomb in Kuwait, fired hundreds of missiles at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zone, and offered bounties to his military for our airmen, soldiers, and sailors. Plus he was planning to plant poison in America to kill civilians by the hundreds. Those are Iraqi provocations legitimizing the war.

    However, if you think Saddam could be dislodged by some means short of war, please do tell us what that might be. Saddam respected only brute force.

    Zara: “As for your suspicion about a big swimming pool buried in the desert full of WMDs (thats some oasis you’re hallucinating about) a suspicion does NOT justify such a dangerous and bloody war to me.”

    The swimming pool analogy puts a size on the projected stock of chemical weapons required to mount a military defense. Considering that Saddam buried squadrons of fighter jets in the desert, that’s not unbelievable. The captured document I presented shows that at least some WMD were buried.

    Those WMDs are not suspicions, but reality. They include the WMD initially claimed by Iraq, the ones found by the UN inspectors, and the ones Saddam was later forced to admit he had after UN inspectors found documents revealing their existence. It’s safe to assume that there are additional WMDs Saddam kept hidden from the inspectors.

    The plans for smuggling ricin and nerve agents, which are WMDs, were found in Iraq along with sufficient quantities of WMD to carry out those attacks. Planting ricin in Radio City Hall or filling the New York subway full of nerve gas doesn’t require a swimming pool full of WMD, merely enough to carry in a backpack.

    I doubt anything would justify the Iraq war to you or any invasion of a Muslim nation, regardless of its crimes against its people and the world. It seems likely that were a terrorist attack to kill another three thousand Americans, you would find it justified, perhaps even celebrate it as the Muslim world danced after Sep 11. We Americans will decide what defense is necesssary to keep Muslim terrorists at bay, not you who wish us ill.

    Zara: “Saddam and bin Laden:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html – what’s amazing is this is taken from one of your own more conservative (though probably not as conservative as you!) newspapers and details the findings of the 9-11 commissions.”

    Zara, my dear, the Washington Post is not a conservative paper unless you are a Bolshevik. The Washington Post, LA Times, and New York Times are considered the three main liberal newspapers in America.

    The Sep 11 Commission found no evidence of collaboration between Saddam and the Sep 11 plotters, which is true enough. The meeting of Iraqi agents with Sep 11 plotters in Prague and Kuala Lumpur does not prove that they were collaborating on the Sep 11 plot, but certainly is suggestive. They could have been collaborating on other terror operations. But what other intelligence services had any contact with the Sep 11 plotters other than Iraq?

    The Sep 11 report itself documents ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the form of meetings between Iraqi intelligence and Bin Laden, the article itself mentions them, yet the headline of this Washington Post article is “Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed.” The headline rebuts the story, and the headline is about as far as most liberals will read.

    The Sep 11 report did not find evidence supporting Saddam collaborated with the Sep 11 plotters, but it did not conclude that there was no such collaboration. Absence of evidence of collaboration is not evidence of absence of collaboration. The Washington Post article makes that leap of logic. It’s the kind of sloppy thinking at the root of most lefty arguments and the reason why the liberal media has fallen into such disrepute.

    The report also offers this fascinating tidbit: The Poles report that employees at the Iraqi embassy there were ordered to go out in the streets on Sep 11 and report on public reaction to some unspecified event that day. Gosh, I wonder what that could be.

    Zara: “As for the purported intelligence: i have seen reports of meetings dating back to 1998 but no follows. if it was as serious as the masters of war would suggest, i wonder it wasn’t a bigger deal – until of course it was roped into back up reasons to go to war in Iraq. And interestingly enough, i wonder how much MORE al qaeda activity there is in iraq now as opposed to before your great war.”

    According to recent reports, 40% of Al Qaeda operatives are dead and a significant portion of them in prison. I would hazard a guess that those dead Al Qaedans are inactive as well as their jailed colleagues and that the remainder would be rather despondent that the majority of their organization is dead or imprisoned.

    While you apparently remained hopeful that Al Qaeda is swelling its numbers in Iraq and on the path to victory, apparently the Al Qaeda leaders don’t share your enthusiasm. In this letter captured in Zarqawi’s safe house, the Al Qaeda terrorists as much as admit they are losing and offer desperate strategies to change their vector to defeat.

    Zara: “Guantanamo Bay: Only ten detainees have been charged with crimes and more than 200 have been released or transferred to their home countries, many as free and presumably innocent men. The US military has said itself that there are innocent men at Guantanamo.”

    Combatants captured in war are not normally charged with crimes. For example, the US did not charge ordinary German, Italian, and Japanese soldiers captured during WWII with crimes, except in unique cases. Under the Geneva Convention, combatants are held until the end of hostilities. It is the misfortune of the Muslim combatants in Gitmo that Islam declares perpetual war on infidels. They will probably die in prison, the victim of their own unyielding murderous bigotry against non-Muslims. That’s entirely just.

    Telling the difference between terrorists and bystanders caught up in the war is difficult as terrorists carry none of the insignia required by the Geneva Convention to identify them as combatants. This situation is created by the Muslim terrorists, not America which properly identifies its combatants. The Muslim terrorists thought they could gain an advantage by operating outside the international law of armed conflict and now find themselves outside its protection because they did not comply with it. Of course, the risks of non-compliance properly fall on the outlaws, not on their intended victims.

    After extensive examination, the US has released hundreds of prisoners from Gitmo. Releasing them does not mean they were innocent. Some have returned to their terrorist profession and spilled innocent blood, again. Others were small fish not worth keeping in prison. Some, like the Chinese Uighurs, were genuinely innocent hapless people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. We’re trying to release them but nobody will take them but China, who wants to imprison them or worse.

    Zara: “According to a US department of defense report more than 80% of prisoners were handed over by afghan or pakistani bounty hunters and not caught because of any investigation or evidence against them.”

    It’s true that some of the prisoners from the Afghan war were sold to America by their Muslim brothers for bounties. It’s taken time to sort them out and release them. If the Muslim combatants properly identified themselves in accordance with the Geneva Convention, there would be no need for that. We didn’t need to hold Japanese and German citizens after WWII to figure out if they were soldiers, as their soldiers wore uniforms which identified them as combatants.

    However, your idea that combatants captured in war are equivalent to criminals caught by police who require investigations and evidence to hold them is crazy. If Americans found a Japanese pilot wandering around Pearl Harbor with his parachute but we couldn’t prove he actually dropped a torpedo or fired a bullet, using your logic we would have to set him free. You are incorrectly attempting to apply domestic law to a situation covered by international law, making the absurd assumption that terrorists qualify for all the rights of Americans by attempting to kill Americans overseas with terrorist operations.

    Zara: “Former prisoners have released reports describing debasing prison conditions and treatment by officials, including physical abuse, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, force feeding, and psychological mistreatment.”

    Claiming torture is the standard policy of Al Qaeda as documented in its captured manuals. Gitmo is a fairly transparent prison, with an on site Red Cross representative and a constant stream of visitors, including journalists from all countries, politicians, and prison inspectors from Europe. The “torture” you cite above seems pretty weak tea. Are you really condemning America as torturers for force-feeding a prisoner trying to starve himself to death? Are you recommending we let him die so we don’t torture him by forcing him to eat? Please clear that up for us.

    While the worst and literally bloodthirstiest of Al Qaeda get three hots and a cot in Gitmo, Al Qaeda takes pride in showing its captives confined in tiny animal cages begging for their lives before they are beheaded on video. The Al Qaeda manual mandates torture for prisoners. While the prisoners in Gitmo receive medical care and have put on an average of 18 pounds in captivity, no Al Qaeda prisoner survives captivity.

    If yours were a principled objection to inhumane conditions for prisoners, your ire would be directed at the Al Qaeda terrorists who revel in imposing inhumane conditions on its prisoners. Yet you don’t, probably because the perpetrators are Muslims, whose devotion to spreading Islam places them above criticism, no matter how criminal and inhuman the means.

    Zara: “I’m curious to why you bring up al qaeda treatment of captives.”

    Because it demonstrates your hypocrisy so neatly.

    Zara: “you are disgusting, and this conversation is over.”

    Again?

    Steve

  110. Loki says:

    Zara – I wouldn’t bother with Steve. I asked him a simple question and I got some long rant with no answer to my question in sight.

  111. Anonymous says:

    Steve doesnt have any answers just propaganda.

  112. Anonymous says:

    Steve also has a good sense of humour.

    http://radioactiveliberty.com/?p=486

  113. zara says:

    steve’s got the world all figured out – “you’re with us or against us”

    i quote:
    “With all due respect to President Bush, the people of the world do not have to choose between the Taliban and the US government. All the beauty of human civilisation – our art, our music, our literature – lies beyond these two fundamentalist, ideological poles.

    Nothing can excuse or justify an act of terrorism, whether it is committed by religious fundamentalists, private militia, people’s resistance movements – or whether it’s dressed up as a war of retribution by a recognised government.

    The bombing of Afghanistan is not revenge for New York and Washington. It is yet another act of terror against the people of the world. Each innocent person that is killed must be added to, not set off against, the grisly toll of civilians who died in New York and Washington.

    People rarely win wars, governments rarely lose them. People get killed. Governments moult and regroup, hydra-headed. They first use flags to shrink-wrap peoples’ minds and suffocate real thought, and then as ceremonial shrouds to cloak the mangled corpses of the willing dead.

    On both sides, in Afghanistan as well as America, civilians are now hostage to the actions of their own governments. Unknowingly, ordinary people in both countries share a common bond – they have to live with the phenomenon of blind, unpredictable terror. Each batch of bombs that is dropped on Afghanistan is matched by a corresponding escalation of mass hysteria in America about anthrax, more hijackings and other terrorist acts.

    Certainly it does not tire – this, the Most Free nation in the world. What freedoms does it uphold? Within its borders, the freedoms of speech, religion, thought; of artistic expression, food habits, sexual preferences (well, to some extent) and many other exemplary, wonderful things. Outside its borders, the freedom to dominate, humiliate and subjugate – usually in the service of America’s real religion, the ‘free market’. So when the US government christens a war ‘Operation Infinite Justice’, or ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’, we in the Third World feel more than a tremor of fear.”

    (Arundhati Roy)

    ps – the conversation is waay over

  114. M says:

    “Steve doesnt have any answers just propaganda.”

    Well, at least Steve’s “propaganda” is thoughtful, sincere and his own which is probably why he doesn’t have to resort to taking his bat and ball and threatening to not play every time someone says something that doesn’t fit with his world view.

  115. Zara: “ps – the conversation is waay over”

    Promises, promises. I have yet to see a woman who could stop talking. The threat to stop talking is the weakest and least credible threat in the female arsenal. The second hand can not complete a full circle before such a threat is forgotten.

    Zara: “steve’s got the world all figured out – “you’re with us or against us”

    When it comes to murdering Muslim maniacs butchering thousands of innocent Americans at a time, yes, that is precisely my position. For moral people, that’s a pretty bright line worthy of respect. In most other things, I am willing to concede varying shades of gray.

    You have extracted the heart of Arundhati Roy’s argument from the link you provided earlier, which I heartily recommend to all to read. It is a classic piece of witless anti-American rhetoric, well-executed and irrational, a triumph of form over substance. Let me fish out the juicy parts for critique:

    Arundhati Roy: “With all due respect to President Bush, the people of the world do not have to choose between the Taliban and the US government. All the beauty of human civilisation – our art, our music, our literature – lies beyond these two fundamentalist, ideological poles.”

    What planet does Roy live on? If you love the beauty of human civilization with respect to art, music, and literature, the Taliban offers little to satisfy you. The Taliban doesn’t believe in most art, especially representations of human form, especially especially women. All of their effort in the arts was devoted to defacing such representations. And the Taliban art lovers blew up the Buddhas at Bamiyan which had stood there over a milennium. There is not a chance in a million years that America would blast those Buddhas to bits like the ignorant Muslim savages.

    If you’re a music lover, you probably are going to have a hard time buying tickets at the Kabul Concert Hall to hear the Taliban National Symphony. There isn’t any. The Muslim neanderthals don’t believe in music, especially anything with a beat. It’s blasphemous. The only music that slips through the cracks is some of that Saudi bedouin stuff played on instruments with one string.

    If you love literature, you may be disappointed when you go to the Great Taliban Library of Kandahar to check out the great works of world literature: War & Peace, the Iliad, the Tale of the Genji, Les Miserable, Shakespeare. There is no library. All you need is the Koran, infidel blasphemer. If it’s not in there, you don’t need to know it. The Taliban subscribes to the long intellectually impoverished history of Islam that rejects infidel knowledge and which regards infidel literature as beneath contempt.

    If you want any of that art, music, literature that Roy treasures, you need to go to America, not Taliban-land. The fact that Roy doesn’t understand that, that she thinks the cultural flowering of America and Taliban Afghanistan are equal, demonstrates how clueless she is.

    Arundhati Roy: “Nothing can excuse or justify an act of terrorism, whether it is committed by religious fundamentalists, private militia, people’s resistance movements – or whether it’s dressed up as a war of retribution by a recognised government.”

    In Roy’s dimwitted formulation, if you defend yourself against terror, you are a terrorist, too! At least, if you are America. I guess all those passengers on United Flight 93 who fought their skyjackers must be terrorists, too. And Roy chooses to paint America’s defense as simple retribution rather than its true aim to remove a threat to itself. Bin Laden never dreamed that America would strike his bases in Afghanistan. He intended to use them for follow on attacks as the American paper tiger folded.

    Arundhati Roy: “The bombing of Afghanistan is not revenge for New York and Washington. It is yet another act of terror against the people of the world. Each innocent person that is killed must be added to, not set off against, the grisly toll of civilians who died in New York and Washington.”

    Roy is a moral imbecile to equate terror attacks with the defense against terror. It’s like saying that if you are mugged in an alley by criminals you become a criminal if you defend yourself from further blows. She also slips in the sly bogus assumption that those killed in Afghanistan are innocent.

    How anti-American must Roy be to castigate it for defending itself against attacks that slaughter thousands of Americans in their offices?

    Arundhati Roy: “People rarely win wars, governments rarely lose them.”

    Huh? The slaves freed by the Union victory in the US Civil War definitely won. The Jews liberated by the Allies in the death camps of WWII won. So did all the captive populations suffering under the German and Japanese racist tyrannies. All the Shiites that will never be driven out to the desert in caravans of buses by Saddam’s henchmen and shot en masse have clearly won.

    And the Confederacy, Nazi Germany, Hirohito’s Japan, and Saddam’s Iraq were governments which definitely lost their wars.

    This kind of rhetoric may sound smart to dopey sophomores but it lacks any tether to reality or knowledge of history.

    Arundhati Roy: “On both sides, in Afghanistan as well as America, civilians are now hostage to the actions of their own governments. Unknowingly, ordinary people in both countries share a common bond – they have to live with the phenomenon of blind, unpredictable terror. Each batch of bombs that is dropped on Afghanistan is matched by a corresponding escalation of mass hysteria in America about anthrax, more hijackings and other terrorist acts.”

    Afghanistan is not equivalent to America, except in Roy’s wacky parallel universe. The Afghans were certainly captive to the Taliban and oppressed by them. Americans are not captive to our government. We own it and run it.

    The threat of terror attacks in America are not products of hysteria, but of Muslims. This week we found out that Muslim maniacs were 45 days away from poisoning thousands of passengers in the New York subway. Last week, Canada arrested a group of Canadian Muslims who wanted to bomb Canadian landmarks and behead the president. Before that, Scotland Yard caught a group of Muslims plotting terror. Before that, an American Muslim drove over a bunch of fellow college students in an attempt to kill them as part of the jihad. And on and on and on.

    Arundhati Roy: “Certainly it does not tire – this, the Most Free nation in the world. What freedoms does it uphold? Within its borders, the freedoms of speech, religion, thought; of artistic expression, food habits, sexual preferences (well, to some extent) and many other exemplary, wonderful things. Outside its borders, the freedom to dominate, humiliate and subjugate – usually in the service of America’s real religion, the ‘free market’.”

    The free market we favor means that you can buy and sell your goods and services as you see fit, which Roy regards as hideous oppression. If an Egyptian buys a McDonald’s franchise in Cairo and starts selling Happy Meals, the next thing you know pinheads like Roy are calling it an attempt to dominate, humiliate, and subjugate the locals. What a friggin’ joke.

    Arundhati Roy: “So when the US government christens a war ‘Operation Infinite Justice’, or ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’, we in the Third World feel more than a tremor of fear.”

    Though obviously not such fear that Roy would hesitate to publicly criticize America. After all, President Bush will not pronounce a death fatwa on her for insulting America. We will place no bounty on her life for her writing. She will never need to fear American agents coming to get her. Everyone knows you can criticize America without fear of retribution.

    Given the centuries of Muslim aggression against Indians, Roy is certainly in a minority of Indians who are alarmed that America is fighting Muslim terror. Most Indians I know are relieved. While Muslims hate everyone who isn’t Muslim, the Hindus are even lower than Jews and Christians in their bigoted view, being completely pagan.

    Isn’t it ironic that Roy criticizes America, where she could live as she please and walk anywhere without being molested, while Taliban Afghanistan gets off easy, where Roy would be an infidel female, the lowest of the low, subject to beatings should she show her face in public. In the war of civilizations, she seems to favor the barbarians.

    Steve

  116. Lujayn says:

    Steve said: “While Muslims hate everyone who isn’t Muslim…”

    ???

  117. Steve The American says:

    Lujayn,

    A fair criticism, Lujayn. I meant the fundamentalist Muslims, particularly the Taliban. I admit that there are some Muslims who are more cosmopolitan and are normal people.

    And yet, I read in this month’s Esquire an article, “Innocent” about John Walker Lindh or “Jihad Johnny,” the American traitor captured with the Taliban in Afghanistan, that when he converted to Islam, one of the requirements to become a Muslim was to give up his infidel friends. Why does Islam have such intolerant and hateful requirements for its followers? Why does being a Muslim mean burning your bridges with people of other faiths?

    It seems to me that you can be a good person only by rejecting much of Islam which foment alienation from the rest of humankind and lead you down the path to hate.

    Steve

  118. Lujayn says:

    Steve, despite claiming you meant fundamentalists, you really dont seem to differentiate. Some Muslims are normal? Islam requires you give up “infidel” friends? How many Muslims have you met, Steve?

    John Walker Lindh, I remember reading, was a pretty lousy “Christian” before he became a lousy “Muslim”. I dont hold either religion accountable for his depravity, and I dont hold Islam responsible for the depravity of Muslim fundamentalists.

    I can differentiate, and that allows me to be optimistic about the future of this region, as there are millions of us who dont subscribe to this madness. Just read about the thousands of young Egyptian activists demonstrating for their rights, even landing in prison for their democratic beliefs. These people have nothing to do with your nihilistic fundamentalists, yet the western media does very little to draw attention to their plights, nor do you, personally, see them or give them credit. Prisoners of conscience litter Arab prisons, because they believe in the same values as free people all over the world believe in. Democracy and respect for human rights and values are not a monopoly of the West, we all hold them dear and valuable. However, our struggle to reach them is very difficult, as we face both internal and external opposition (you will most definitely oppose that last one, despite the fact that none of us have seen the US or Europe reprimanding the Egyptian regime for its crackdown on political activists).

    There is plenty in all religions (maybe not Buddhism) that can be taken as incitement to hatred and intolerance, and there are plenty of religious leaders that use these messages to further their aims. You had Pat Robertson, at one point, calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. I sure hope nobody paints all Christians as fanatical murderers because of ONE Christian nutcase. We can throw accusations back and forth all day; you’ll cite a hundred stories of Muslim fanatics and I’ll cite a hundred stories of Christian fanatics. However, the common denominator, I think is fanaticism, not religion.

    We dont have to reject Islam or Christianity or Judaism to be a human being. We just have to stop interpreting religious texts in a way that serves our depraved, power-hungry, intolerant, narrow-minded aims under the guise of religion.

  119. Sally says:

    Steve, I read the JWL article as well, and I found the idea that he must give up all his infidel friends as really strange, considering that I have had many devout muslim friends (who observe the 5 pillars faithfully, which as far as I can understand – are the only REAL requirements) who function as well as anyone in “normal” society, both in the US and in the ME. Lind got caught up in a cult (cults always control people by shutting them away from outside ideas) – a rather large and frightening one, but a cult nevertheless. Which is why I believe that the seperation between church and state is so essential in any modern society. Not that I am anti-religioun, but religion in the hands of immature and power-hungry people is always poisonous.

  120. Sally

    Below is a list of some basic characteristics of cults. Though this was written from a Christain perspective concerning Christian type cults I think some of the ideas transend to the twisted verision of Islam people like Zarquawi practice or claim to practice. I see them as being in a cult and not practicing Islam like it is intended.

    Some Characteristics of CULTS

    1. A strong, dynamic leader, upon whom the group was founded, or who has taken up the mantle of leadership; often one who claims divinity, or who claims to be closer to God than his/her followers, with special authority and anointing.

    2. New, original, extra-Biblical revelation, exclusive to the group, teachings hidden from the rest of the regular Religion

    3. Elitism, exclusivity, superiority, a ” true church ” position. They are selling a particular brand of faith, and they regard other brands as the opposition.

    4. A last days obsession–a disproportionate emphasis on eschatology (prophecy) along with some unique interpretations.

    5. Extra-zealous, coercive and questionable recruiting/salesmanship tactics.

    6. Legalism and/or asceticism–strict conformity in dress, social restrictions, rigid rules of behavior–as a means of gaining or retaining Gods favor.

    7. Total commitment and childlike submission to group authority expected of members, along with unquestioning acceptance of group doctrines, policies, and leadership.

    8. Intensive indoctrination, demanding exclusive/excessive amount of time from members; authoritarian, oppressive leadership.

    9. Persecution complex/paranoia.

    10. Salvation by works, as opposed to the Christian doctrine of justification by grace.

    11. Communal living (Utopian Socialism), along with the loss of personal rights and possessions.

    12. Conditioning, brainwashing, grooming, peer pressure, manipulation.

    13. Individualism discouraged/suppressed–the loss of personal autonomy, dignity, and freedom.

    14. Encouragement to sever family ties; suspicious of & threatened by family contact.

    15. Secrecy and isolation, often coupled with survivalist mentality/practices.

    16 Personality and behavioral changes in members, often including name changes.

    17. Subjectivity–truth is based on experience, feelings, circumstantial events.

    18. Lack of historic perspective–ignores the last 2,000 years of church history, claiming they are the true Church, and all previous groups were in spiritual darkness.

    19. Combative, militant opposition toward anyone outside of the group.

    20. Chanting ritual, constant repetition of teachings, in order to block rational thought process, keeping recruits from appraising the teachings of the group.

    21. Isolation of recruits, who are not permitted to leave the group compound–a greenhouse scenario, effectively shaping the environment, blocking contact with the real world.

    22. Unique rites and rituals, often conducted secretly or privately.

    23. Ex-members are ostracized, shunned, condemned, or even persecuted (sometimes even murdered).

    24 Unique interpretations of Scripture, teachings that set the group apart from the mainstream and general consensus of religious thought.

    25. Any group that promotes itself and its founder/leaders more than it promotes God. They may talk about God and claim to promote faith in God, but when forced to decide between their organization and a God who is bigger than their group, they will side with their group.

  121. M says:

    Steve,
    “become a Muslim was to give up his infidel friends. Why does Islam have such intolerant and hateful requirements for its followers? Why does being a Muslim mean burning your bridges with people of other faiths?”

    I understand what you meant even if you didn’t say fundamentalists, but I think Lujayn’s point is valid. You concede that you meant nutcases and then proceed to bring up JWL as an example of the ills of Islam and Muslims in general. By no means was Lindh an average Muslim. He actively sought out the strictest form of the religion and traveled there to learn and practice it.

    You logically have to know what you wrote is not so for most Muslims. Why do you write this stuff?

  122. Loki says:

    in some circles a leader of a country who was “told by God” to actively wage war would be considered as much of a “terrriririst” as those who seeks to destroy. To quote Stoker’s Van Helsing “we have all become God’s madmen”.

  123. Loki says:

    *whom he seeks

  124. Anonymous says:

    “I was inspired to be able to visit the capital of a free and democratic Iraq,” George W Bush said.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5098896.stm

  125. Loki says:

    And by visit he means landing in the airport shaking some hands and getting the hell outta there. Its a shame really, I think he should have gone for a walk down some of the markets in Baghdad……

  126. Will says:

    Dont read anything into that Loki, thats the same way he visits Detroit.

  127. Anonymous says:

    ROFL!!! – an interesting point!

  128. Loki says:

    forgot my name on the last post

  129. M says:

    Well, at least he shows up. Who else would even bother with that hell hole? Detroit, I mean.

  130. Anonymous says:

    Steve-the-American:

    Bush’s plan has succeeded. NOW, Iraq has been thrown into anarchy/civil war by agent provocatuers; Zarqari and such. RELIGIOUS war. NOW, the American military is inextricably situated in the middle of this Iraqi civil war/anarchy and the Bush/Cheney industries are profiting magnificently, apparently for untold years to come.

    Our brave soldiers are being sent to this foreign land to “alledgedly” defend our freedoms. No, they ARE NOT defending our freedoms. Yet, many of them are dying needlessly.

    While our “politicians’,” “cpnservatives” and “liberals,” pretend to debate endlessly about how to extirpate our brave misguided soldiers,

    While the Council on Foreign Relations accepts orders from the Bilderbergers on how to form a totalitarian world government,

    While the elite of the American government meet in Bohemian Grove this summer,

    The average American citizen, as well as the average citizens of all other nations, bleat as the sheep that they are and submit to the cabal of leaders that afflict them with terror, always blaming it on “the emeny” and yet stepping down ever so accordingly on the necks of their populations (as if THEY were the enemy) in an effort to protect them.

    Arise! Awake!

    Steve-the-American: WHAT SAY YOU?

  131. Anonymous says:

    “You dont really need to find out whats going on
    You dont really want to know just how far its gone”
    Dirty Laundry, Don Henley

  132. Anonymous,

    That’s quite a load of rhetoric. My advice is to leave out the word “Bilderberg” in future rants because it brands you as a loon from the gitgo.

    You might want to log in and get an alias from Mahmood so that it will be easier to tell your rants apart from other drive-by ranters.

    As for the rest of you, be assured that Steve the American is reading your stuff but he is busy learning Photoshop online and has a hard deadline to meet. Comments will follow later.

    Steve

  133. Loki: “And by visit he means landing in the airport shaking some hands and getting the hell outta there. Its a shame really, I think he should have gone for a walk down some of the markets in Baghdad…… “

    I’d much rather see Saddam go for a walk in the markets of Baghdad, shaking hands as he goes.

    Steve

  134. Loki: “in some circles a leader of a country who was “told by God” to actively wage war would be considered as much of a “terrriririst” as those who seeks to destroy. To quote Stoker’s Van Helsing “we have all become God’s madmen”.”

    Loki, must I continually remind you that the cause of the war in Iraq was Saddam? Specifically, Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush the elder, shot hundreds of missiles at our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, place bounties on our military people, refused to comply with the UN resolutions, supported terrorists in and outside Iraq, made plans for terror attacks in the US and Europe, et cetera. Any one of these is a casus belli.

    If you want to look for nutcases getting personal messages from God to make war, you need look no further than Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and every other Muslim country and mosque.

    Steve

  135. Loki says:

    Steve – What a great Idea! I think he could show Bush the sites! Also, it might be an interesting idea to see which one of them lasts a split second longer than the other.

    While the gates of Hell are wide open, why not make the most of it.

  136. Loki says:

    Steve – Have you reminded me before? You must excuse me for not reading everything you post (my rant filter sometimes kicks in you see). And no, the “cause” of the war is the American invasion. That fact that you think there is a justifcation is great, the majority of the planet begs to differ.

  137. Lujayn: “Steve, despite claiming you meant fundamentalists, you really dont seem to differentiate. Some Muslims are normal? Islam requires you give up “infidel” friends? How many Muslims have you met, Steve?

    I’d say that the majority of Muslims are not normal, in that their religion imposes such a burden of bigotry upon them that they are unable to think clearly. For example, the majority of Muslims refuse to admit that Muslims perpetrated Sep 11. This article cites polls of Muslims to that effect:

    “At the same time, the percentage of Muslims who believe that Arabs did not carry out the Sep. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon has increased. Majorities in Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and among the Muslim community in Britain doubt that Arabs had any role.”

    The numbers I’ve read recently are that the numbers of people in Muslim countries who refuse to accept that Arab Muslims perpetrated Sep 11 runs about 55 to 60%. That is an abnormal belief and evidence of a culture awash in religious bigotry.

    Here’s another article is by a Canadian who went searching for the mythical moderate Muslim in Pakistan among the educated elite. What she found is that Muslims who call themselves moderate believe the Jews did Sep 11. And these are Muslims with PhDs! It’s as if becoming a Muslim requires you to have a lobotomy, the inherent bigotry of the religion cancelling out your education.

    The problem with the majority of Muslims is summed up neatly in the same article by Khalid Ishaque, a retired Pakistani jurist and Islamic scholar: “It’s quite interesting that Muslims all over the world are very sympathetic to the perpetrators of Sept. 11, though publicly they will not admit it to you. Privately, they believe it was a good thing that the haughty West was punished. … Unfortunately, we are in a tacit war with the West and, in times of war, people don’t like to talk in terms of peace.”

    Muslims are indoctrinated to hate non-Muslims and make war against them. That leads them to support terrorism like Sep 11, though most feel enough shame to keep their support private. That support, in turn, leads Muslims into hypocrisy, prevarication, blame shifting, intellectual dishonesty, among a host of other vices. The cartoon-like belligerence Islam demands of observant Muslims makes them abnormal human beings.

    To answer your question, I don’t know how many Muslims I know. It’s not like I administer a religious test to people I meet. Of those friends whom I know to be Muslim, they are spread over a spectrum. One guy, an American of Palestinian descent, was a pretty good gentle guy. After Sep 11, he passed out treats at Eids, trying to give everyone a sweet taste of Islam. It was a simple thing, but with the best effect. Another guy, a Jordanian, I overheard denying there was a Holocaust, marking him as an idiot bigot.

    Lujayn: “John Walker Lindh, I remember reading, was a pretty lousy “Christian” before he became a lousy “Muslim”. I dont hold either religion accountable for his depravity, and I dont hold Islam responsible for the depravity of Muslim fundamentalists.

    I’m not sure that anyone is a good Christian in Marin County. Johnny Jihad seems like a lost soul to me looking for structure in his life. It seems like his family believed in everything and nothing. I can’t help but wonder if his hatred for America is irrationally linked to his father turning gay and leaving his family. Johnny was looking for something with a lot of rules to fill up his empty life and fundamentalist Islam fit the bill perfectly.

    Islam is indeed responsible for the depravity of the Muslim fundamentalists. There is nothing they do that is not scripted in the Koran and hadith. Following the example of Mohammed naturally leads you to make war on non-Muslims. By contrast, becoming a good Buddhist or Quaker leads you away from violence.

    Lujayn: “Just read about the thousands of young Egyptian activists demonstrating for their rights, even landing in prison for their democratic beliefs. These people have nothing to do with your nihilistic fundamentalists, yet the western media does very little to draw attention to their plights, nor do you, personally, see them or give them credit.”

    I see them but I don’t see that many of them. And I am suspicious of the noble motives attributed to them by the politically correct liberal media, which tend to report their hopes as facts.

    Lujayn: “There is plenty in all religions (maybe not Buddhism) that can be taken as incitement to hatred and intolerance, and there are plenty of religious leaders that use these messages to further their aims. You had Pat Robertson, at one point, calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. I sure hope nobody paints all Christians as fanatical murderers because of ONE Christian nutcase. We can throw accusations back and forth all day; you’ll cite a hundred stories of Muslim fanatics and I’ll cite a hundred stories of Christian fanatics. However, the common denominator, I think is fanaticism, not religion.

    Pat Robertson is not equivalent to Osama Bin Laden. He is the butt of ridicule in America while Bin Laden is a hero in the Middle East. To date, Robertson has not drawn one drop of blood in his religious crusade while Bin Laden has spilled the innocent blood of thousands to the cheers of Muslims around the world. Our Christian nuts are pretty mild compared to your Muslim nuts, who are actively killing people. There’s just no comparison as far as the degree of evil.

    If the common demoninator were fanaticism, terrorist atrocities would be randomly distributed across all religions. They’re not. Terrorist acts are concentrated in Islam, largely because Islamic doctrine demands war on non-Muslims.

    Lujayn: “We dont have to reject Islam or Christianity or Judaism to be a human being. We just have to stop interpreting religious texts in a way that serves our depraved, power-hungry, intolerant, narrow-minded aims under the guise of religion.”

    We certainly do need to reject large chunks of Christianity to be good human beings. For example, it would be crazy to take seriously the Bible demand to suffer no witch to live. There aren’t any witches. If you took the Bible literally and began killing women you thought were witches, you’d be a criminal who deserved the death sentence. Many Protestants have pretty much chucked the Old Testament as having too much testosterone to build a good religion upon it. They only print the New Testament for their flocks. They much prefer that lovey-dovey New Testament turn the other cheek pacifism to the violent smight them hip and thigh Old Testament aggression.

    The problem with Islam is that it has boxed itself into a corner by making the editing of their holy scripture impossible, trapping its worshippers into the behavior of desert savages, incompatible with modern life. Instead of adapating to the future, it drags its flock back into the past.

    Steve

  138. Lujayn says:

    Steve, you’ve upped the attack on Islam, widening the scope to include everything and everyone, from every mosque to every country to every person. Every man, woman and child, in your view, is guilty of evil, hatred and bigotry, as they are born to it.

    I dont see what more I can say to you. To each his own, I guess. Hate us to your heart’s content, pile every evil in the world that ever was, is or will be on us, if it makes you feel better. Obviously, what I do, say or believe, is irrelevant. All the best.

  139. Anonymous says:

    I’m not sure that anyone is a good Christian in Marin County.

    Lujayn dont feel alone your apparently with the people of Marin County. Wonder what they did? Probably liberals or gay or some bigot nonsense conjured up in Steves mind as a reason they cant be good Christians.

  140. Valkyrie says:

    I have beaten you, Steve. I have identified you as a CIA provacatuer. You are a fool and an idiot. I, being a master of epistemology, welcome you back to this thread to show the entire world your evil mind and the confusion of mind you accept in your attemps to deal with it.

    What say you NOW, Steve?

    PS
    “Spiders tread HERE!” FOOL!

  141. Valkyrie,

    Take a look at the other posters posts. They disagree with me but they make sense. You do not. Why don’t you find something intelligent to say. Until then, stop bothering the adults.

    Steve

  142. Ethan says:

    I hate to jump on the Steve bandwagon, but this made me think:

    Some Characteristics of CULTS

    1. A strong, dynamic leader, upon whom the group was founded, or who has taken up the mantle of leadership; often one who claims divinity, or who claims to be closer to God than his/her followers, with special authority and anointing.

    Mohammed claimed to recieve revelation from Jibreel, and was the sole source for the eternal book: The Koran.

    2. New, original, extra-Biblical revelation, exclusive to the group, teachings hidden from the rest of the regular Religion

    The aforementioned Koran is extra-biblical

    3. Elitism, exclusivity, superiority, a ” true church ” position. They are selling a particular brand of faith, and they regard other brands as the opposition.

    Islam is the final revelation of God to mankind. All other religions have been corrupted and therefore are false. Take not nonbelievers as confidants because they seek to ruin you.

    4. A last days obsession–a disproportionate emphasis on eschatology (prophecy) along with some unique interpretations.

    Mohammed received prophecies from God.

    5. Extra-zealous, coercive and questionable recruiting/salesmanship tactics.

    Have you -read- Da’wa books? Well, that an the whole ‘Dhimmitude: convert or you have to pay a special tax and be humiliated’ thing.

    6. Legalism and/or asceticism–strict conformity in dress, social restrictions, rigid rules of behavior–as a means of gaining or retaining Gods favor.

    Islam is an obscenely legal religion. I refer you to Islam-qa.com. Strict conformity in dress, and social restrictions aginst alcohol, free thought and such.

    7. Total commitment and childlike submission to group authority expected of members, along with unquestioning acceptance of group doctrines, policies, and leadership.

    Muttawa, or the like. This also includes the extreme social hierarchy found in Arab society.

    8. Intensive indoctrination, demanding exclusive/excessive amount of time from members; authoritarian, oppressive leadership.

    Five prayers a day. It’s not just for looks.

    9. Persecution complex/paranoia.

    But but.. Islam’s the perfect society! We just haven’t done it right. We’re supposed to RULE THE WORLD and we’ll outbreed the kufr right out of their own land.

    10. Salvation by works, as opposed to the Christian doctrine of justification by grace.

    Jihad in the cause of Allah is the only guaranteed way to heaven. Other than that, you’d better toe the line.

    11. Communal living (Utopian Socialism), along with the loss of personal rights and possessions.

    Unless you mean by the way of splitting up the booty of Jihad amongst the believers, Islam’s clear on this one.

    12. Conditioning, brainwashing, grooming, peer pressure, manipulation.

    Watched any Al Jazeera lately? Palestinian TV? Web videos?

    13. Individualism discouraged/suppressed:the loss of personal autonomy, dignity, and freedom.

    Join Islam. Be part of the Ummah. Your life is only to submit to God’s will.

    14. Encouragement to sever family ties; suspicious of & threatened by family contact.

    Take not unbelievers as blah blah blah, even if they be your family.

    15. Secrecy and isolation, often coupled with survivalist mentality/practices.

    7th century Arabia?

    16 Personality and behavioral changes in members, often including name changes.

    I am no longer John Smith. I am Muhammad Abu Jihad.

    17. Subjectivity:truth is based on experience, feelings, circumstantial events.

    Well, truth is whatever the Mullah tells you.

    18. Lack of historic perspective:ignores the last 2,000 years of church history, claiming they are the true Church, and all previous groups were in spiritual darkness.

    Islam ignores previous revelation by blanket condemnation. Only Islam has not been corrupted.

    19. Combative, militant opposition toward anyone outside of the group.

    Jihad.

    20. Chanting ritual, constant repetition of teachings, in order to block rational thought process, keeping recruits from appraising the teachings of the group.

    Koran memorization. Five Prayers a day.

    21. Isolation of recruits, who are not permitted to leave the group compound:a greenhouse scenario, effectively shaping the environment, blocking contact with the real world.

    Self-imposed isolation by many muslim groups in the West away from the rest of the nation. Enforced ghettoization.

    22. Unique rites and rituals, often conducted secretly or privately.

    Nope. Though it’s hard to visit a Mosque unless you’re a Muslim, and the holy book is not written in the common language.

    23. Ex-members are ostracized, shunned, condemned, or even persecuted (sometimes even murdered).

    Apostates are killed. “Let those who change their religion be killed”

    24 Unique interpretations of Scripture, teachings that set the group apart from the mainstream and general consensus of religious thought.

    Much of the Islamic portrayal of Jesus and other figures are taken from Gnostic texts.

    25. Any group that promotes itself and its founder/leaders more than it promotes God. They may talk about God and claim to promote faith in God, but when forced to decide between their organization and a God who is bigger than their group, they will side with their group.

    If that doesn’t describe the Middle East today than NOTHING does. 😛

    –Ethan

  143. Loki says:

    Yes, you are jumping on the band wagon.

  144. Ethan says:

    Of course I admitted that, Loki.

    Regulars here know that I’m a dyed in the wool critic of Islam-as-religion. I’m not a supporter of Steve’s ‘nuke them all’ solution by any means, however. I’m merely an ideological warrior who very much hopes that one day the Kaaba will be a tourist museum, and whatever survives of pre-Saudi history will one day be on display there as a reminder of what a totalitarian, fascist ‘religion’ can do to a whole culture.

    I suppose I’m an exact anti-Caliphatist 😀 I wish to see a large part of humanity freed from the shackles of ‘submission’ to a false deity created to make a bunch of Arab mercenaries feel better and more pious than the Jews.

  145. Loki says:

    Tsk, tsk, Ethan. All you posted was FUD followed up by more FUD. I suggest you apply the above criteria to Judaism as you mentioned “pious jews”. I’m not going to start quoting Torah passages here, but I think you get my drift.

  146. Ethan says:

    Tsk tsk. You could certainly apply the same cretieria to any religion and with enough twists and turns show it to be a cult.

    Interesting how you grabbed Judaism, though. Even the most pious Jews do not follow the Leviticine rules to the letter. However, a quick look at the typical Islamist chatter on the internet would certainly show my points above to be far more than what you think it is.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060629.wxblog29/BNStory/National/home

    On the other handI think there is something to be said for the cult-like nature of Islamism, or Islam in the first couple of centuries. You see in the news stories about cult leaders who take young girls from their followers as wives. (There was a great episode based on this idea on SVU). Aisha anyone?

    But that’s enough speculative posting from me. Should you want it, I’ll quote chapter and verse on everything from why the veil was introduced (hint, it wasn’t because God or Mohammed wanted it) to the treatment of Dhimmis under Sharia. It’s all there for even the most oblivious to read.

  147. Loki says:

    “Tsk tsk. You could certainly apply the same cretieria to any religion and with enough twists and turns show it to be a cult.”

    This is the most intillegent thing you’ve said so far (and the point I was making). It aso sums up your earlier posts.

  148. Ethan: “I’m not a supporter of Steve’s ‘nuke them all’ solution by any means, however.”

    Ethan, Ethan, Ethan. I wish the people climbing on the Steve bandwagon would read the “Steve Bandwagon User Manual.” Steve has never advocated nuking anyone, not the Arabs nor the Muslims nor the Soviets nor the Chinese. This is something Malik kept repeating until everyone seems to think I said it. Never happenned. Steve knows what nukes can do. It was my job to deliver them via F-4E in case the fertilizer hit the ventilator. It’s best the nukes stay in the armory. Once you start slinging the nukes about, it opens Pandora’s box for a host of bad things.

    What Steve does advocate is this:

    1) Muslims stop murdering people to propagate their religion.

    2) Muslims reform their religion to work and play well with non-Muslims. This means tearing a lot of extremist pages out of the Koran and knocking Mohammed off his pedestal because he sets an evil example in some ways, ie stealing, beheading, jihad, and marriage by capture/killing.

    3) Normalization of relations between the Muslim world and the non-Muslim world so that we can do business. That means that the Muslims become so peaceable that the entire world no longer needs to have elaborate defenses in every airport against Muslim killers.

    4) Muslims stop blaming everyone but themselves for their screwups.

    5) Reform of Muslim governments/culture so that ordinary Abduls can get ahead on merit and freedom of speech enough so that they can build universities worth attending. That means that the mullahs and imams and ayatollahs are sent packing out of government office where they do nothing but screw things up and are sent back to the mosques where their ability to do damage is limited.

    Actually, the first three points are the core of Steve’s Plan For The Future. I threw Points 4 and 5 in as optional tasks just in case you finished the problem set early and needed something to do.

    That’s the Steve Plan. Learn it, love it, live it.

    Steve

  149. Will says:

    The idea that terrorists are more notably Muslim than they are murderers lends them a credibility that they do not deserve.

  150. Will says:

    98% of the approx. 12,000 murders in the USA every year are committed by capitalists.

  151. billT says:

    Steve your plan might appeal to the western mind but from a Muslim point of view you know its not workable. So what does that leave but nuking them or learning to coexesist.

    billT

  152. Ethan says:

    The idea that terrorists are more notably Muslim than they are murderers lends them a credibility that they do not deserve.

    Jihadists deserve respect insofar as they are the enemy of everything that is good in this world. If you do not know your enemy, his motivation and his creed, and do not seek to defeat it, you have already lost.

    98% of the approx. 12,000 murders in the USA every year are committed by capitalists.

    87% of the characters in that quote are lies 😛 See the danger of statistics?
    Do not make the mistake in saying that all Americans are capitalist. That is not true; and of those Americans that Identify as capitalists, I doubt that a significant proportion of them are murderers.

    So what does that leave but nuking them or learning to coexesist.

    I’m all for co-existance. If the Middle East wishes to devolve to barbarism, I could care less. However, when Islamists start to transform the civilized parts of the world to their own hellish vision of ‘religion’, then I take umbrage. In fact, *gasp* I even agree with the points of the ‘Steve Plan’. Now we just have to get the Western governments to actually support the idea of reform, rather than supporting the latest taqiyya-merchant who talks of moderation in one moment, and actively seeks to undermine Western culture in the next. However, long ago having lost true Liberalism to some asinine construct of the same name, the West is hamstrung by politically correct racism and ignorance.

    Specifically this: Enlightenment philosophy stands diametrically opposite to Islam. I support the ideals of progress, freedom, intellectual curiosity, academic diversity, human development and uber alles: the ability of man to Reason. I do not support ‘eternal truth’, misogyny, murder, rape, xenophobia, mental vacuity and the victim mentality.

    The latter is a stark picture of the Islamist mindset. No other religion is so fixated on violence against non-believers.

  153. Will says:

    and of those Americans that Identify as capitalists, I doubt that a significant proportion of them are murderers.

    That is exactly my point. The two things are not related.

    According to Matthew 10:34 Jesus said “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.” It is not the religion but rather the interpretation of it. The vast majority of Muslims have an innate sense of moral goodness the same as any other group of people. The cancer that is terrorism is just that.

  154. chanad says:

    Steve said:

    Ethan, Ethan, Ethan. I wish the people climbing on the Steve bandwagon would read the “Steve Bandwagon User Manual.” Steve has never advocated nuking anyone, not the Arabs nor the Muslims nor the Soviets nor the Chinese. This is something Malik kept repeating until everyone seems to think I said it. Never happenned. Steve knows what nukes can do. It was my job to deliver them via F-4E in case the fertilizer hit the ventilator. It’s best the nukes stay in the armory. Once you start slinging the nukes about, it opens Pandora’s box for a host of bad things.

    Steve. I do accept the possibility that you have changed your views over time, but please don’t tell us you have never advocated nuking anyone. I present a couple quotes from the past.

    On June 9, 2004, someone under the name of “Steve” wrote:

    I want to see dead Saudis. For every American butchered at his desk by evil Saudi scum, I want to see a hundred dead Saudis. I want to see Saudi blood flow in Saudi streets by Saudi hands. It was great fun for Saudis to see infidel Americans die by the thousands by Saudi hands. Let’s see how they like their terror when it comes home to roost. Those evil Wahhabis will never learn to give up violence until it is visited upon their heads in massive quantities. Perhaps it will take a nuke or two to make them as peaceful as the Japanese.

    On February 6, 2005 someone under the name of “Steve” wrote:

    Until Saudis start dying in heaps at home as a conseqence of their bloody jihad, their religious war will remain popular just as the Germans and Japanese found war a wonderful thing until it came home knocking on their front doors. When the Wahhabis blow up a building or train, massive violence should return upon their heads in their homes in Saudi Arabia the next day. When killing a hundred infidels abroad results immediately in a thousand Saudi dead the next day in Riyadh, the Saudis will cease their support of their war against the world.

    This second quote doesn’t explicitly mention nukes, but certainly provides the justification for it.

  155. Ethan: “In fact, *gasp* I even agree with the points of the ‘Steve Plan’.”

    That’s more like it. Now you’re talking sense.

    Will: “98% of the approx. 12,000 murders in the USA every year are committed by capitalists.”

    I doubt if most murderers know what capitalism is. Most murders in the US are committed by criminals killing each other, specifically drug dealers killing each other. Of course, if you are a criminal, you don’t believe in the right to property, the core tenet of capitilism. And most criminals favor Democratic politics, which leans toward socialism.

    Will: “The vast majority of Muslims have an innate sense of moral goodness the same as any other group of people. The cancer that is terrorism is just that.”

    It is a mistake to assume that other cultures share our moral values or that they are good people. For example, the Aztecs thought it was moral to sacrifice captives to their gods, cutting their beating hearts out, mounting their skulls on racks to display on their pyramids, tossing their headless bodies down the steps of their pyramids to the people waiting below who dismembered them to cart the limbs home to cook and eat. I don’t see any innate sense of moral goodness in any of that.

    Likewise, the Romans were pretty morally sick to kill people for sport in the Colosseum. The Indian devotees of thuggee were morally depraved to strangle travellers for their religion. And, of course, there are the Nazis.

    When the Muslim terrorists struck on Sep 11, the Muslim world reacted with joy. They danced in the streets and passed out candy in Palestine. They slaughtered goasts and feasted in Saudi Arabia. They shot off homemade rockets in Germany. Wasn’t it you, Will, who heard them celebrating in a mosque as you escaped from one of the towers? Even to this day, the majority of the Muslim world refuses to admit that Muslims perpetrated Sep 11 even while they gloat.

    This is not the reaction of a people who have an innate sense of goodness but rather that of a people who adhere to a depraved set of values. That set of values is laid out in the Koran and by Mohammed’s example. It is completely right in Muslim eyes for infidels to be slaughtered in infidel lands, the Dar al Harb, just as the Koran states. It is right to fight non-believers until the world is Muslim, just as Mohammed said in his last words. Skyjacking jets is merely the modern version of raiding caravans, as Mohammed did. And of course, martyrs in the cause of Allah go straight to paradise.

    If the Muslim world was innately good, we would have seen a far different reaction to Sep 11. There would have been a visceral disgust with murder done for Islam. Instead, they celebrated. The governments of the Muslim world would have swiftly mobilized to track the trail of the terrorists, document what they found, and arrest the remainder of their networks. Instead, they refused to cooperate and continued financial support through the mosques and governments. There would have been scathing denunciations of the atrocity in the Arab media. Instead, there was jubiliation.

    The cancer here is the current practice of Islam which supports terror on non-Muslims, just as Islam has supported war against non-Muslims since its inception. If Islam was innately good, terrorists could not survive long in the Muslim world any more than they could thrive in the West. They would be snuffed out.

    For example, look at Zarqawi. The Jordanians supported him while he was killing infidels or at least killing people outside Jordan. It was not until he killed Jordanians at their weddings in Jordan that the Jordanians soured on Zarqawi. Not ’til then did they begin actively hunting him down and working with the Americans to do him in. Within six months, he was dead. If the Muslim world was opposed to terrorism, the Muslim terrorists would be all be dead as Zarqawi. They would be fish out of water.

    billT: “Steve your plan might appeal to the western mind but from a Muslim point of view you know its not workable. So what does that leave but nuking them or learning to coexesist.”

    There was a time when all the world believed the Earth was flat. Sending a ship over the horizon was unworkable. It would fall off the edge or be eaten by monsters. Now the world has changed over to the knowledge the Earth is round. Only some Saudis still believe in a flat Earth.

    There was a time when every white person in the West believed that people of other races were genetically inferior. Allowing them full rights as citizens and giving them the vote was considered unworkable in the US. Now everyone but the radical fringe in the West (and the Saudis) believe in the equality of the races.

    Those two examples (and surely I can produce more) prove that it is possible to bring dysfunctional cultures around to a more enlightened view. There is a middle path between the poles of acquiesence or annihilation, which is to drag the Muslim world into modernity, kicking and screaming. Most of this dragging can be left to the sensible Muslims, whose small numbers will hopefully grow. Those are the Muslims like Mahmood who want the ordinary freedoms and privileges of the Western world applied to their own community while keeping their own culture.

    Some of the dragging can be done by Westerners making an ideological assault on Islamic fundamentalism, which is a lucrative target. It’s largely irrational and a disaster in practice. Much of the dragging can be done through trade, with Muslims coming to the West to make money and Westerners doing the same in the Muslim world. Trade carries ideas. The West, particularly the US, is an idea factory while the Muslim world is an idea desert. It’s immensely useful for Muslims saturated with Arab media propaganda to constrast it with direct observation in the West to realize they are being force-fed lies back home.

    In those cases where it is necessary, the dragging should be done with military force. Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of that. Iran may become an example, though I hope, probably in vain, it can be avoided. None of them require nukes.

    Steve

  156. mahmood says:

    Steve: Even to this day, the majority of the Muslim world refuses to admit that Muslims perpetrated Sep 11 even while they gloat.

    Generalisations, I know it is part and parcel of Steve, but it’s got to be pointed out. Get over it Steve and believe that we – the majority of Muslims – are actually peace loving and regular people although we do have problems and some of us are murderers and terrorists, just like you find in your own US of A. So quit the verbose generalisations.

    Steve: The cancer here is the current practice of Islam which supports terror on non-Muslims, just as Islam has supported war against non-Muslims since its inception.

    Wrong again and generalising once again. Most if not all terrorist murders have been perpetrated by Muslims against fellow Muslims unfortunately. This time it’s specifically a particular brand of Sunnis who made it a hobby to kill Shi’as. Just this morning, 62 innocent people died in a car-bomb in Sadr city with hundreds injured. Zarqawi as is bin Laden and hundreds like them belong to the same sick school of Wahabism, which as you know are actually a minority in the Muslim world and are regarded by the vast majority – not just Shi’as – as misguided, which is just on the borderline of being called what they should be called: faithless.

    And all of this is not in the name of reglion nor its application, as you and Ethan harp on about, it is politics and money which are the basis of these acts and pursuits.

    So get off your soap box about religion, and go petition your own government to not support the states which actually not only support these misguided few, but aids and abets them, with YOUR help and YOUR guns and YOUR intelligence.

  157. billT says:

    And all of this is not in the name of reglion nor its application, as you and Ethan harp on about, it is politics and money which are the basis of these acts and pursuits.

    Your right power is the name of the game. You notice that in the US anytime the republican party starts slipping in the polls they immediately bring up the war on terror. Its not just about national policy its the only thing keeping them in power.

  158. Loki says:

    Yeah, and the american tax payer is going to foot the bill.

  159. billT: “Your right power is the name of the game. You notice that in the US anytime the republican party starts slipping in the polls they immediately bring up the war on terror. Its not just about national policy its the only thing keeping them in power.”

    I’m not a fan of the misnamed “War on Terror” but it is indisputable that we are under attack by a nebulous constellation of Islamic fundamentalists with the Saudis at the center of it. Carping about Bush bringing up the current war as a ploy for votes is as lame as claiming FDR was mentioning the day which will live in infamy as a ploy to squeeze out a couple more terms. The Republicans don’t have to work too hard to stay in office during wartime when the Democrats show themselves incompetent to run the military, even fielding candidates like Clinton and Kerry who demonstrate contempt for the military.

    Loki: “Yeah, and the american tax payer is going to foot the bill.”

    American taxpayers footed the bill for the Sep 11 attacks, too. If there must be war, it is far better to pay for a war fought on the aggressor’s territory than to pay to clean up their attacks here in America. A defensive war is far more expensive than an offensive war.

    Steve

  160. Steve: “Even to this day, the majority of the Muslim world refuses to admit that Muslims perpetrated Sep 11 even while they gloat.

    Mahmood: “Generalisations, I know it is part and parcel of Steve, but it’s got to be pointed out. Get over it Steve and believe that we – the majority of Muslims – are actually peace loving and regular people although we do have problems and some of us are murderers and terrorists, just like you find in your own US of A. So quit the verbose generalisations.”

    Let me again cite this poll of Muslims in Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and Britain which shows that the majority refuses to admit that Arabs had anything to do with the Sep 11 attacks: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33731
    To me that’s tacit support of the attacks.

    I don’t see the terrorism situation as equivalent in the US and Middle East. I don’t hear of any American preachers calling for war against non-Christians nor buying weapons to kill non-believers nor funding terrorist organizations. The US government does not fund Christian terrorists as so many Muslim governments fund Muslim terrorists.

    Most of all, when those few radical religious Americans do violence, we arrest them and toss them in prison. They do not become heroes to Americans, as Muslim terrorists become in their home countries.

    And of course, most religious terrorists in the US are Muslim.

    Mahmood: “Most if not all terrorist murders have been perpetrated by Muslims against fellow Muslims unfortunately.

    We can agree that Muslim terrorists do kill a fair number of Muslims. But where is the outrage? Crowd after crowd of Iraqi civilians can be wiped out by suicide bombs delivered by Saudis, yet there is no outrage in the Muslim world comparable to that spurred by prisoners forced to wear panties on their heads at Abu Ghraib. It’s pretty clear that non-Muslim misdemeanors are elevated to felonies in Muslim eyes while Muslim crimes are minimized.

    Mahmood: “And all of this is not in the name of reglion nor its application, as you and Ethan harp on about, it is politics and money which are the basis of these acts and pursuits.”

    I’m not convinced that the suicide bombers are in it for the politics nor money. They’re clearly in it for the virgins in paradise.

    Mahmood: “So get off your soap box about religion, and go petition your own government to not support the states which actually not only support these misguided few, but aids and abets them, with YOUR help and YOUR guns and YOUR intelligence.”

    Perhaps we can agree that supporting a state like Saudi Arabia has merely helped our Saudi enemies kill Americans en masse. That should stop and the Saudi state dismantled. We certainly have taken too pragmatic a tack with the existing Muslim tyrannies and must place pressure on them to reform.

    Steve

  161. Chanad,

    It looks like you have dredged up at least one cite of me speculating that a nuke is what it might take to pacify the Saudis, though not quite advocating it. I don’t advocate it.

    However, it is completely fair to counter-attack Saudis for their terror attacks in our home. When Saudis kill Americans, we should certainly kill Saudis in return and in greater measure in a completely unequal exchange of violence. As long as the Saudis pay no price for killing Americans, they will continue to do so. We absolutely must return their war to them on their doorsteps. They will lose their taste for jihad when all the evil they have perpetrated around the world returns upon their heads with interest. That won’t require nukes.

    Steve

  162. billT says:

    The Republicans don’t have to work too hard to stay in office during wartime when the Democrats show themselves incompetent to run the military, even fielding candidates like Clinton and Kerry who demonstrate contempt for the military.

    No more incompetent than the Republicans. Send troops off without adiquately armored vehicles and no body armour. Dont secure weapons dumps for days after the invasion. Allow the poppy trade to flourish giving the Talaban more money to buy weapons that kill Americans. Destroy the infrastructure of a country and years later the country still doesnt have electricity on a regular basis. Promote democracy but when the wrong people win dont work with them. I can go on and on about the Republicans running a war. Truth is neither party seems to be able to fight a war.

  163. Ethan says:

    According to Matthew 10:34 Jesus said “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.”

    I see this one bantered around a lot. Here’s the context:

    10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
    10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
    10:36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
    0:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
    10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
    10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
    10:40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
    10:41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.
    10:42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

    This verse is not violent at its face when added to the rest of the statement. Jesus is pointing out that love of Jesus (as God) is more important than loyalty to family. It is true – the early Christians were ostracized from their families for their belief, as are many Christians today. Ask the Afghani convert 🙂

    Contrast with some verses from the Koran:

    2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
    2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.2:192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
    2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.

    There is nothing in the New Testament which is equitable with this. The God of the New Testament does not order his people to fight. In terms of the Old Testament, there again is nothing like this injunction. The Old Testament is filled with stories of vicious barbarism, yet God himself sets down no permanent injunctions for violence.

    2:216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
    2:217 They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein.

    From the same chapter. Again, the Bible does not ordain permanent warfare against those that persecute you. The idea that ‘persecution is worse than killing’ and to ‘kill those that persecute you’ is anethmatic to the near entirety of Judeo-Christian dogma. Islam thrives on persecution. As long as there is a feeling that a Muslim is persecuted, Jihad follows. And the one thing that persecutes Islamists more than anything else? Not ruling the world.

  164. Will says:

    Ethan

    I’m all for co-existance. If the Middle East wishes to devolve to barbarism, I could care less.

    Your true colours?

    Now we just have to get the Western governments to actually support the idea of reform, rather than supporting the latest taqiyya-merchant…

    Absolutely but they are not employing taqiyya they are debauchee.

    Steve

    You might review what I said about capitalists and murderers. I think you missed it.

    I do not assume that Muslims have an innate sense of moral goodness. I can see that it is true. Most of the dispicable behavior in the world is the product of enlarged and perverted egos.

    I think it was Jared who witnessed the celebrateing Muslims in NYC. I saw one or two reports of isolated celebration. In contrast, Pakistan arrested 600 al Queda members, turned them over to the US and aggresively supported coalition operations in Afghanistan.

    The termination of Zarqawi and the Jordanian involvement is suspect. However, your comment about the Muslim world and terrorism is equal to saying that if westerners were really against rape there would be no rape.


    However, it is completely fair to counter-attack Saudis for their terror attacks in our home.

    What, then, is the difference between you?

  165. Ethan says:

    Truth is neither party seems to be able to fight a war.

    Sad, but true. The Republicans tried, but they screwed up the first few months after 9/11, and completely lost the debate over Iraq (which was practically a gimme). Instead of saying that the enemy is Islamic Fascism, they pooh-pooh’ed it. Told everyone to go about their daily lives, rather than doing what we did before WWII.

    The Democrats, given their bloviations as of late, would have stuck their heads in the sand, or pulled a Jimmy Carter and ‘apologized’ for whatever ‘wrongs’ we have inflicted.

    Given the choices, I choose Bush’s plan. The West shouldn’t grovel or apologize to murdering barbarian assholes. Given a choice of any possible plan, I choose Teddy Roosevelt, mixed with Winston Churchill and a side order of Thomas Jefferson with John Adams as dessert. Stand tall, proclaim the power of our own culture and nation, and not give in to PC in an existential conflict.

  166. Ethan says:

    I’m all for co-existance. If the Middle East wishes to devolve to barbarism, I could care less.

    Your true colours?

    Oh definitely. I’m all for people choosing their own governments and style of life for themselves. That’s freedom. If some nation chooses to live in a seventh century mindset, I’m not going to invade and make them change to what I think is appropriate.

    But I ask the same of them. Don’t try and turn my damn country into something you find ‘appropriate’. Don’t export your hate and kill my family because you can’t comprehend the idea of people thinking that your ‘perfect society’ is less than adequate for rational humans. Don’t come to my country, consider my female compatriots ‘whores’ and work to undermine my civil society.

  167. Lujayn says:

    شو محمود، على اساس قلت انك مش رح ترد على حكي الاخ ستيف؟
    🙂

  168. Loki says:

    Masakeen khayfeen min Muslimeen

  169. Anonymous says:

    I think it was Jared who witnessed the celebrateing Muslims in NYC.

    .

    That’s right Will, and to underline your larger point, there were also Muslims amongst my co-workers, friends, and colleagues, who were slowly descending 38 floors with me after the first plane hit, stopping every two or three flights to let more firemen up the narrow staircase.

    The people outside the 2nd avenue mosque really did look like crazed, medieval twits. I saw about a dozen people behaving this way. I don’t know how many people attended that mosque, or what they all thought about this. Certainly, that handful of miscreants were not inheritors of the ideas and contributions of Al Razi, or Sufism.

    I’m saddened that there are people in the west who desire to paint an entire culture, which has made great contributions to humanity, with a single broad brush. I must say though, that any honest discussion on the topic should point out that there are many more people in the Muslim world behaving this way toward the west, many advocating, and some perpetrating horrific acts to this end.

    My colleagues who are Muslims all seem like normal, decent, caring people to me. I do have one personal friend (not a coworker) who confided to me that he had to change mosques because he didn’t want his children subjected to what he considered hateful ideas.

    Clearly, Islam is in crisis. Here’s one example I found of thoughtful Muslims addressing these problems:

    http://classes.colgate.edu/osafi/progressive_muslims.htm

    Jared

  170. Loki says:

    LOL. Get a life

  171. mahmood says:

    Lujayn, sometimes “he explodes my liver”!

    Jared, to resolve a problem, one must recognise it first. That I think to a large part has been recognised; resolution however is not given a chance to succeed because of people bulldozing genuine efforts at reform just because they want to vent their anger and paint a sizable majority of the world’s people with the same brush.

    My reckoning is that if that destructive energy is harnessed to help these reforming voices, we will all reach our destination quicker. What these people are doing in their zeal is distancing the very forces of change they should encourage and help.

  172. Loki says:

    well said.

  173. BillT: “No more incompetent than the Republicans. Send troops off without adiquately armored vehicles and no body armour. Dont secure weapons dumps for days after the invasion.”

    Bill, I don’t know if you noticed but we took down both Afghanistan and Iraq in a matter of weeks. That’s pretty competent by any standard, especially when you compare them to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan and the Iranian war with Iraq.

    The assertion that no troops in Iraq had body armor is a pretty foolish one and self-evidently wrong to the casual observer. The idea that you can perfectly forsee the way any war evolves and prepare for it is comic book stuff. Armouring up Humvees is a response to a change in enemy tactics, just like attaching scrap iron to tanks in the Normandy invasion was a response to hedgerow fighting. When you fight an extended war, the nature of combat continually changes requiring each side to adapt continuously. We are better at adapting than the insurgents are and have been much more successful at changing the terms of battle to our advantage.

    BillT: “Allow the poppy trade to flourish giving the Talaban more money to buy weapons that kill Americans.”

    We didn’t go to Afghanistan to stop the poppy trade, but to stop it from being used as a base of terror attacks on the US. We need to focus on that mission and get it done rather than indulge in scope creep or fecklessly leap from mission to mission, accomplishing nothing. You seem to avoid my argument that an Afghan civil government would be more effective at dealing with drug production than the US military.

    The Taliban doesn’t need poppies to buy weapons. Every Afghan already has an AK-47 or two. The Pakistanis and Saudis keep them supplied with weapons. The problem is not that the Taliban is attacking US troops but that they are not attacking our troops more.

    The US military wishes the Taliban would engage it more in Afghanistan because such battles tend to be very lopsided victories. When the Taliban attacks, they usually get their butts handed to them as the Predators track them to their staging areas and our air assets wipe them out. The kill ratio of American to Taliban dead is running about 1 to 80.

    BillT: “Destroy the infrastructure of a country and years later the country still doesnt have electricity on a regular basis.”

    Bill, you don’t know what you are talking about. There wasn’t much infrastructure in Iraq to destroy and what existed was in bad repair. The shortages of electricity in Iraq are caused by improvements, not destruction, and by the dysfunctional structure of Iraq bequeathed by Saddam.

    Electrical production has increased but it has been overtaken by demand. When the US released the Iraqi market from import restrictions (Saddam’s boys imposed a tariff on imports) the Iraqis went wild buying electrical appliances. That increased demand for electricity.

    The biggest problem is that Iraqis don’t pay for their electricity. Saddam distributed it free to those neighborhoods which supported him. There is an infinite demand for free stuff. When the electricity comes on, the Iraqis suck it up. If they were required to pay for their electricity, Iraqi consumers would ration their private use so that there would be enough to go around. Because consumers don’t ration it on a fine scale, the producers must ration it on a coarse scale, shutting down entire sections of the grid so that everyone gets a turn. It’s a classic example of the tragedy of the commons.

    However, economically illiterate critics on the Left think it is a shortage of electricity. They simplistically think the answer is to make more electricity when no amount would satisfy demand when distributed for free. What is needed most is better management of the existing electrical production by letting the market manage demand through pricing rather than through socialist rationing.

    BillT: “Promote democracy but when the wrong people win dont work with them.”

    Just because you are elected democratically doesn’t mean that you are a good guy worth supporting. We don’t support democratically-elected Hamas for the same reason we didn’t support the democratically-elected Nazis.

    BillT: “I can go on and on about the Republicans running a war. Truth is neither party seems to be able to fight a war.”

    The current crop of Republicans have run their wars rather well. The old crop of Democrats back under FDR ran their war rather well, before their political descendants turned against America and what it stands for.

    Steve

  174. billT says:

    Ethan: But I ask the same of them. Don’t try and turn my damn country into something you find ‘appropriate’.

    Isn’t that what we are trying to do by fostering our version of democracy on them? Much like the hamas win in Palestine the final version of democracy in Iraq probably won’t be something we will be happy with.

    Ethan I’m all for exporting democracy. It’s the only ideology that protects the common man but like American political process be better be ready to be losers every 4 or 8 years and live with the vote or get the hell out of the area.

    billT

  175. billT says:

    The old crop of Democrats back under FDR ran their war rather well, before their political descendants turned against America and what it stands for.

    Steve you just managed to insult half of all Americans but its not your record since you have insulted all Muslims on more than one occasion.

    Just because you are elected democratically doesn’t mean that you are a good guy worth supporting.

    🙂 You made my day.

    You seem to avoid my argument that an Afghan civil government would be more effective at dealing with drug production than the US military.

    Not ignoring it at all. I just believe the Afhgan goverment couldn’t even manage to stay in power without US troops there, much less deal with the poppy crop. So whos left?

    billT

  176. Jared in NYC says:

    What’s your point Loki? Perhaps you misread my post.

    Jared

  177. Jared in NYC says:

    Mahmood, I agree. I do think it’s true that there are many more moderate and encouraging voices in the west than shrill, broad brush accusatory ones. Unfortunately, extreme views expressed outrageously seem to be what gets attention, as most advertizers know.

    My perception may be distorted because I don’t read Arabic, but it does seem as if the calmest, most creative voices in Islam are coming from the west or the small parts of the Muslim world that are free and prosperous.

    Maybe that’s the key to the problem, though I don’t think freedom and prosperity can be imposed by force.

    Jared

  178. Ethan says:

    Isn’t that what we are trying to do by fostering our version of democracy on them? Much like the hamas win in Palestine the final version of democracy in Iraq probably won’t be something we will be happy with.

    Interestingly enough, the Constitution of Afghanistan implicitly includes the message that Afghanistan is a Muslim Country with Islamic law as the guide. That’s not ‘our Version of Democracy’. There’s hardly anything Jeffersonian about Iraq’s constitution either.

    One of the strengths of BOTH occupations has been the complete reluctance of the Americans to IMPOSE a government. All we do is enable a new government to be formed by popular mandate. Look at the voting in Iraq and Afghanistan. There’s nothing there that says ‘the americans imposed anything’ other than, of course, the removal of dangerous, despotic regimes that did nothing but abuse the people and threaten the world. (Or in the case of the Taliban, harbor those that threaten the world, and destroy precious cultural heritage.)

    but it does seem as if the calmest, most creative voices in Islam are coming from the west or the small parts of the Muslim world that are free and prosperous.

    Actually, that’s not true. There are even moderate voices in even Saudi Arabia! (Big Pharoah had a post on this a bit ago). There are many more big extremist voices in the West than there are big moderates. Example: For every one Canadian Irshad Manji, there are 21 terrorists locked up, and a support group of hundreds of like-minded almost-terrorists that frequent the boards that their wives ran!

  179. Lujayn says:

    That, Jared, sums it up, although I have my doubts about the existence of free areas in the Arab world. The only reason, I believe, that there is extremism to start with is because there is no freedom in the Arab world. I find it amazing that citizens of Arab countries are treated as enemies of the state until they prove otherwise – by submitting, wholeheartedly, mind, body and soul, to the regime. Governments across the Arab world consider their entire citizen base as rivals that must be broken before they earn the right to be subjects. How can that possibly foster any healthy sense of citizenship? This has been going on for decades – long enough to turn out generations of youth resentful of their circumstances, of their leadership, of their lack of opportunities, of their backwardness.

    There was this TV satire that I once saw, that summed it up for me. A teacher was asking students what they wanted to be when they grow up. After the usual list of doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, etc, one kid says he wants to be president. The whole class is stunned. The teacher orders him to shut up, and the principal is brought in to deal with this calamity. The father, a low-level government employee, rushes from work to try to settle the mess his son has brought upon the entire family by uttering something so unutterable. After staying home for a few weeks and being subjected to lectures, berating, etc, by his father and mother, the kid is once again asked by his teacher what he wants to be when he grows up, and the kid looks vacantly at the teacher and says, I want to be nothing. And everyone claps, and grins and breathes a sigh of relief, and the father says, that’s my boy!

    I thought that was one of the saddest portrayals of our circumstances.

    That I think is ideal breading ground for extremism. Eventually, you get fed up with feeling like a nothing. The only outlet that allows you to be a human being, worthy of self-respect and dignity, is religion. The only time it has become the only outlet is now. It was a choice in past times, a belief system practiced by people as part of their daily lives, not the entirety of their existence.

  180. Lujayn says:

    and Mahmood, hold on to that liver, its not worth exploding over 🙂

  181. BillT: “Steve you just managed to insult half of all Americans but its not your record since you have insulted all Muslims on more than one occasion.”

    Well, you know, Bill, I have gone to watch a few anti-war marches here in DC where the streets were full of Democrats bearing signs calling Bush “Hitler” and any number of vulgar things. You can click on my website to get a face full of exactly what the American Left stands for. Please note the photo of Bush’s head on a stick. What you will not ever see at an anti-war march is any mention of Saddam or Al Qaeda, let alone criticism. What you will find at anti-war marches are plenty of Communists carrying banners calling for the overthrow of the United States. Call me crazy, but that sounds treasonous. And there are always more of Saddam’s Iraqi flags flying than American flags.

    When Bush was inaugurated, I was standing there on the parade route in front of the Willard Hotel to witness lefty protestors jeer at the Medal of Honor winners, call the honor guard “storm troopers” and “imperialists.” When Bush passed, they erupted into a frenzy of hate, scary to watch. Afterwards they celebrated by tearing up the Willard and throwing debris at the police while chanting at them to get out of Palestine.

    When the Democrats reflexively take an anti-American position at every opportunity, I’m happy to call them on it. When their anti-war marches sport giant banners calling for a socialist revolution, it’s a no-brainer to figure out what they’re about. It’s pretty disengenuous to run down America at every opportunity then pretend to be insulted when it’s pointed out.

    Steve

  182. Jared in NYC: “Maybe that’s the key to the problem, though I don’t think freedom and prosperity can be imposed by force.”

    You mean like the Allies did in Japan, Germany, and Italy in WWII? Or the US in South Korea?

    Steve

  183. Jared: “I do have one personal friend (not a coworker) who confided to me that he had to change mosques because he didn’t want his children subjected to what he considered hateful ideas.”

    And so another mosque is taken over by the Wahhabis. Mosque by mosque, they consolidate their control over Islam and dominate it, directing it to jihad and bloodletting. Meanwhile, the moderate Muslims retreat and give up their religion to the crazies.

    Your friend is part of the problem. Making a gift of your mosque to the Wahhabis is not the solution.

    Steve

  184. Loki says:

    Jared – Sorry, yoJared – Sorry, You are absolutetly right I misread your post (Or rather I didn’t even read it). I was skimming throught the posts and caught the all the wrong words and thought “bloody hell, not another one”. Alas, the sword was faster than the mind (old bedouin saying).

  185. Loki says:

    excuse the typos:

  186. Where did you see that satire broadcast, Lujayn?

    Curious,

    Steve

  187. billT says:

    Steve. I don’t agree with most of what they are doing during marches either but they have the right to march. What would you have us do round them up and put them in reeducation camps?

    Your looking at a small percentage of people and calling them a whole group again. The vast majority of Democrats are at home or working, not marching carrying Bush’s head on a stick or calling for the overthrow of America. We normal leftist and those who lean to the right get the chance to overthrow a president every 4 years without blood being shed. In between we do just the same criticize each other.

    billT

  188. BillT: “Steve. I don’t agree with most of what they are doing during marches either but they have the right to march. What would you have us do round them up and put them in reeducation camps?”

    That’s a nice scarecrow you’re building there, BillT: STEVE WANTS TO THROW THE PEACE MARCHERS IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS! I missed the part where I actually said anything like that. In fact, I very much enjoy the anti-war marches. It’s like Ringling Brothers pulled their circus train up to the National Mall and set loose ten thousand monkeys. They are the most entertaining thing I’ve seen here. It’s wonderful to take photos of what the Left really looks like and really believes. For me, it’s an opportunity to show the Left dropping its pants and showing its butt.

    Sadly, the big antiwar demonstrations have ground to a halt here because ANSWER, the Stalinist group that runs them, has alienated all of its lefty partners with its typical ruthless Stalinist controlling and deceptive behavior. The “peace” protestors are fighting each other. Heh, heh, heh. While I appreciate the irony, I miss the giant papier mache puppets marching for peace.

    BillT: “Your looking at a small percentage of people and calling them a whole group again. The vast majority of Democrats are at home or working, not marching carrying Bush’s head on a stick or calling for the overthrow of America. We normal leftist and those who lean to the right get the chance to overthrow a president every 4 years without blood being shed. In between we do just the same criticize each other.”

    My, my, my, Bill you seem awfully defensive about the Stalinists leading the anti-war movement. That’s why I miss the big anti-war marches: It embarasses the lefties so much to point out those big red revolutionary banners they are marching behind, courtesy of such true patriotic groups as the Communist Party of New Jersey. It’s not that they mind hanging tight with the Communists, who in their view are just liberals with guts, but they certainly don’t want it to be broadcast to the public.

    When you march behind the Stalinists, when you let the Communists lead you, you are not marching to a peaceful demonstration or to maintain a system of peaceful democratic transition of power. You are marching toward bloody revolution like sheep being led by the wolves.

  189. Jared in NYC says:

    Lujayne, thanks for that startling and instructive example.

    The one thing I would add as a possible driver for extremism is humiliation, because it’s a powerful manipulative tool. If impressionable or vulnerable people can be made to feel, rightly or not, that they have been deeply humiliated, they can be made to do just about anything.

    After the Protestant reformation, Christianity in Europe went into violent, sectarian convulsions. After about 150 years, people began to see the wisdom of separating church and state, and the religious strife receded. I can’t think of a way that this outcome could have come about from external forces, so maybe Islam has to have it’s own internal struggle and reformation.

    I sincerely hope this can happen without more escallating ugliness, but that doesn’t seem to be a likely outcome right now, though I can see that there are good people struggling toward that end. All I can do is express sympathy and voice my support.

    Jared

  190. billT says:

    I give up Steve. Your just not worth trying to talk to.

    billT

  191. Jared: “The people outside the 2nd avenue mosque really did look like crazed, medieval twits. I saw about a dozen people behaving this way. I don’t know how many people attended that mosque, or what they all thought about this. Certainly, that handful of miscreants were not inheritors of the ideas and contributions of Al Razi, or Sufism.”

    Jared, if, as you seem to assume, that Muslims are innately good people who wish no harm on anyone, don’t you think it was quite a coincidence that one of the closest mosques to the World Trade Center would respond to the attack with jubilation? If such mosques harboring ill will toward Americans and viewing American deaths with relish were one in ten thousand, what are the odds that one of them would be located within sight of the WTC? Didn’t you notice that the dominant reaction of the Muslim world to the deaths of three thousand Americans was glee? What you witnessed was not some improbable anomaly but the tip of the iceberg.

    By contrast, what conclusion would you have come to if after hundreds of thousands of Muslims died in the tsunami of 2004, Baptists all over America danced in the streets, shouted “Praise the Lord,” and passed out candy? What if you had seen Baptists celebrating those Muslim deaths in their churches? Would you have dismissed their happy reaction, as you dismiss the happy reaction of the Second Ave mosque? Would you have retreated to some politically correct stance that they could not have possibly meant it?

    Jared: “I’m saddened that there are people in the west who desire to paint an entire culture, which has made great contributions to humanity, with a single broad brush. I must say though, that any honest discussion on the topic should point out that there are many more people in the Muslim world behaving this way toward the west, many advocating, and some perpetrating horrific acts to this end.”

    It’s a shame you’re sad, Jared, but you might consider how frustrated we conservatives can be with liberals like you who refuse to follow the facts to their logical conclusion. When Muslims around the world celebrate mass murder against America, when mosques everywhere ring out with calls for jihad against America, when Muslim terror plots pop up everywhere and occassionally succeed, when Muslims contribute money in their mosques to fund terror against non-Muslims, when Muslims make the death of America their doctrine, it leads you to a general conclusion that most Muslims want to destroy America and kill Americans. Now you call that painting with a broad brush, but you might consider how much paint the Muslims have provided us to do so.

    Hatred of America is not an anomaly of Islam. It’s a feature. It fits into the general Koranic doctrine of hatred toward all non-Muslims, who in Mohammed’s dictum, often repeated in the Koran and hadith, must be converted, subjugated, or die. We are the biggest and most powerful of the non-Muslim powers and so attract the greatest hate. It’s just as Zacarias Moussaoui testified in court as the reason for the Sep 11 attacks: Muslims should be the superpower in the world, not America.

    Steve

  192. Will: “I think it was Jared who witnessed the celebrateing Muslims in NYC. I saw one or two reports of isolated celebration. In contrast, Pakistan arrested 600 al Queda members, turned them over to the US and aggresively supported coalition operations in Afghanistan.”

    “Aggressive” is an overstatement. As Pervex Musharraf said, after Sep 11 it was clear that Pakistani national interest no longer lay with the Taliban. Like many Arab governments, they made partial concessions to US requests, usually covertly. While Pakistan coughed up a lot of Al Qaeda, they were Arabs, for whom Pakistanis had little affection. They have not turned over Taliban, with whom they maintain a relationship.

    Pakistan’s help is good and of great use to the US, but it’s pragmatic and half-hearted. That’s the best we can hope for from any Arab “ally.”

    Will: “The termination of Zarqawi and the Jordanian involvement is suspect. However, your comment about the Muslim world and terrorism is equal to saying that if westerners were really against rape there would be no rape.”

    Here is the story of Zarqawi’s death in Newsweek. Read and learn.

    After Zarqawi bombed three hotels in Amman, King Abdullah formed a group to hunt him down called “Group of the Knights of God.” They penetrated his cell. Zarqawi’s spiritual advisor was identified, Sheik Abdel-Rahman. He was followed by Predators and his communications intercepted by US signals intelligence. That’s how they learned of his meeting with Zarqawi in the remote farmhouse.

    To pursue your rape analogy, if the US treated rape like the Muslims treat terror, then rapists would be funded by the government and churches. Government officials would support them, overtly and covertly. When they were caught, the police would let them go. If forced to be arrested by outside pressure, they would be arrested with great fanfare and then quietly released a few days later. Kids would wear T-shirts with their names and faces on them. Ministers would make sermons lionizing rapists as religous heroes. The newspapers would write articles arguing in defense of rapists and attributing their crimes to CIA and Mossad conspiracies. TV would carry their home-made videos showing the rapists in action, raping victims.

    Steve: “However, it is completely fair to counter-attack Saudis for their terror attacks in our home.”

    Will: “What, then, is the difference between you?”

    Will, there is a vast moral difference between a surprise attack and self-defense in war which you don’t acknowledge. If there was no difference, as in your upside-down moral universe, then we would be morally equivalent to the Japanese for declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. The passengers on United Flight 93 would be morally equivalent to the skyjackers they counter-attacked on Sep 11. Perhaps in your topsy-turvy view, the passengers became skyjackers themselves by fighting back. Of course, this would lead to the view that the US was wrong to counter-attack Afghanistan after Sep 11 to destroy the Al Qaeda bases which launched the terror attack. This is a common view on the Left.

    Will, you might consider that self-defense is an inherent right for everyone, including the United States. It is immoral to leave your own people defenseless, at the mercy of skyjackers and beheaders. When children on their way to DisneyWorld and on field trips for National Geographic are butchered by Muslim scum, how can you claim it is immoral to use military force to stop further such murders from being perpetrated? Perhaps you can put your philosophy to the test should you ever be attacked by criminals by refusing to fight back lest you become a criminal, in your own foolish view.

    The facts are that two thirds of the money funding terrorism come from Saudi Arabia. The doctrine of propagating Islam through terror originates in Saudi Arabia, has been institutionalized there, and is aggressively exported by Saudi Arabia. And the bulk of the Sep 11 skyjackers were Saudis, dirty, murdering Saudis. Saudi Arabia will continue to attack America in service of their Wahhabi death cult until they are stopped with force.

    Steve

  193. Anonymous says:

    Steve:

    Pakistan’s help is good and of great use to the US, but it’s pragmatic and half-hearted. That’s the best we can hope for from any Arab “ally.”

    Pakistan is Arab?

  194. Anonymous,

    Good catch. I wasn’t thinking. My error.

    Steve

  195. Will says:

    Steve

    As Pervex Musharraf said, after Sep 11 it was clear that Pakistani national interest no longer lay with the Taliban.

    After the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan it was clear that US national interest no longer lay with the Taliban. Alliances shift quickly motives shift slowly.

    Will: “The termination of Zarqawi and the Jordanian involvement is suspect.

    I think the Jordanian involvement is suspect because they probably could have helped take him out much sooner.

    Will: “What, then, is the difference between you?”

    Gandhi was a great man and showed the world the power of non-violence and personal courage. That student in Tienamen square had it too. We all have it and if more of us used it the world would be a better place. I would call that an ideal. Something to be strived toward. It doesnt mean that you dont shoot the rabid dog that attacks you.

    Obviously it is morally justified or even necessary to defend yourself from aggression. I guess your comment about attacking Saudis sounded more like revenge lust than defensive. Terrorism is a cancer not ebola. Furthermore, 20% of Saudi income comes from the US. Stop buying their oil and selling them guns.

    Also, you diminish your credibility when you insult people you simple minded redneck biggot.

  196. Aliandra says:

    Steve;

    The problem is that the Democrats have let the far-left types become their loudest voices. I especially recall where they invited Michael Moore to the national convention, a man who had repeatedly called Americans stupid. More and more they seem to be the party of the Hollywierdos, enforcers of political correctness, secular radicals who run about tearing down 100 year old crosses and nutters who insist Bushitler went to Iraq to kill babies and steal oil. The Republicans have their moonbat fringe too, but they’re not the highest decibel opinions.

    Instead of crying about the 2000 election, the Democratic Party needs to ask itself why Gore had to fight for the election when he should have been a shoo-in. It needs to let more moderate voices have more podium time. Steve, those moderates exist in larger numbers than you think.

    If Democrats want to make themselves attractive to more voters, they must distance themselves from their fringe and be a party for America, not for San Francisco.

    Will;

    Also, you diminish your credibility when you insult people you simple minded redneck biggot

    Uh, Will …

  197. Will says:

    See what I mean

  198. Steve The American says:

    Will: “Also, you diminish your credibility when you insult people you simple minded redneck biggot.”

    You misspelled “bigot,” you nasty little liberal racist. I recommend you go look up “irony” in the dictionary, if you have one, and contemplate how it applies to your remark. Your insults are as incompetent as your arguments. Strive to improve them both in the future.

    Cheers,

    Steve

  199. mahmood says:

    now now people!

  200. Jared in NYC says:

    Aliandra,

    Apologies in advance for replying to a post you addressed to someone else.

    I agree with most of your statement about what’s wrong in the Democratic party and with your speculation about how they should address it. I think we don’t fully agree about the Republican side – my own view is that there isn’t a clear winner in the race to the bottom, and that the constructively engaged and more professional people on both sides, while more numerous than the loonies, are not the loudest or the most often heard.

    Though I usually, but not always, vote Democratic, I haven’t been registered with a political party for many years. Two friends of mine who lean more to the right than the left are the same – they usually vote Republican, but are no longer registered. We’re fairly typical of the swing voter community, which may be growing well past the traditionally 10% mark.

    Our government works best, I think, when one party doesn’t control too much of it, and even better when the movers and shakers from both sides are not idealogues.

    Fortunately, the Supreme court has recently restored some much needed balance.

    Jared

  201. Will says:

    Irony

    a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other’s false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning — called also Socratic irony

    Thanks for the spelling correction Steve, you see I am not to familiar with these terms. You caught the irony but missed the sarcasm.

    You mean ironic like the policy of executeing murderers because killing is wrong. Ironic like advocateing the bombing of innocent people because bombing innocent people is wrong.

    I wonder if it would surprise you to know that I have voted conservative at every opportunity so far.

  202. Aliandra says:

    Jared;

    No apologies needed, Jared 🙂 It’s what keeps these blogs interesting.

    Both parties have lost their way. The Republicans claimed to be the party of low taxes, small government, and limited spending. That is not only false, it’s preposterously false.

    I’ve been voting libertarian in the last several elections as kind of a protest vote. But I admit that the Democrat crackpots irritate me more than the Republican ones.

    Not sure who said that countries need a (peaceful) revolution every few decades. Let’s hope we have one in 2008.

  203. Loki says:

    Will. Bloody hell
    In logic (and IT) one might call what you did: ” a higher level of abstraction ” . Nice.

  204. billT says:

    Not sure who said that countries need a (peaceful) revolution every few decades. Let’s hope we have one in 2008.

    The godfather of liberalism Jefferson I believe. Sure wasnt the godfather of conservatism George Wallace. 🙂

    billT

  205. Aliandra: Not sure who said that countries need a (peaceful) revolution every few decades. Let’s hope we have one in 2008.

    billT: The godfather of liberalism Jefferson I believe. Sure wasnt the godfather of conservatism George Wallace.

    George Wallace was a Democrat, Bill. All those Klansmen down south were Democrats. The Party of Lincoln was not well received in the South back in the 1960s and before. Are you really this clueless or are you engaged in the time honored lefty practice of rewriting history? Are you recasting every dumb Democrat as a conservative? Will your next post tell us Teddy “Mary Was In The Limo When I Last Saw Her” Kennedy and Bill “I Didn’t Have Sex With That Woman” Clinton are really Republicans?

    Sheesh!

    Steve

  206. Will: “You mean ironic like the policy of executeing murderers because killing is wrong.”

    If you don’t execute murderers, the liberals will set them free to kill again. In one study from the 1980s, there were 625 convicts in prison on their second murder conviction. One of them was Kenneth Allen McDuff, who shot two teenage boys in the face in 1968 in Fort Worth so that he could kidnap the 16-year old girl they were talking to, rape her, then snap her neck with a broomstick on a dirt road. The Supreme Court commuted his well-deserved death sentence down to life and then Democratic Governor Anne Richards freed him, greased with a bribe to a corrupt Democratic bureaucrat.

    Three days after he was released, McDuff killed Sarifia Parker. Then he killed Brenda Thompson and Regina Moore. He kidnapped Colleen Reed out of a carwash with a buddy, taking turns raping her in the car until she was used up. So he killed her, too. He kidnapped his coworker Melissa Northrup and killed her along with Valencia Kay Johnson. They don’t really know how many girls he killed. Maybe a dozen. Nobody knows but McDuff and he wasn’t talking.

    He was caught and given a second death sentence. Now that’s what I call irony, Will. A death sentence under a Democratic governor means that you will be freed to kill again. Fortunately for the innocent women of Texas and unfortunately for Kenneth Allen McDuff, a death sentence under Govenor George Bush meant that mad dog killers like him would never be free to kill again.

    Will: “Ironic like advocateing the bombing of innocent people because bombing innocent people is wrong.”

    The only combatants who make a policy of bombing innocent people are the insurgents in Iraq and the jihadis worldwide. But of course, your criticism would never fall on them, would it? The irony here is that you castigate the force that fights to stop the terror bombers.

    Will: “I wonder if it would surprise you to know that I have voted conservative at every opportunity so far.”

    Smelling salts, please. Quick, I’m fading…

    Stev;lkhoielanb

  207. Jared in NYC: “I think we don’t fully agree about the Republican side – my own view is that there isn’t a clear winner in the race to the bottom, and that the constructively engaged and more professional people on both sides, while more numerous than the loonies, are not the loudest or the most often heard.”

    Take those lefty blinders off and take another long look at the lefty loons who dominate the Democratic Party. Take a look at any big antiwar march and you’ll find it larded with Communists calling for a socialist revolution to overthrow the government. You will look in vain for such a similar treasonous element among Republicans. There just aren’t any Republicans looking to overthrow the government like the lefties.

    The left has a scary violent streak. Hollywood celebrities talk about killing Republican politicians. Lefty protestors carry Bush’s head on a stick on their “peace” marches. Heck, I was roughed up by a “peace” march organizer here in DC. Savor the irony. I was in the military for eight years and nobody laid a hand on me but some Stalinist goon attacks me at the second peace march I attend. And I doubt very much if Republicans have ever stood en masse in front of the White House cursing at the president in a rage, with flecks of spit and foam shooting out of their mouths. It was scary to watch.

    Where is the conservative equivalent of the lefty conspiracy fruitcakes? There is a legion of left wing nuts who think Bush engineered Sep 11, blowing up the Pentagon and WTC to take over the world.

    When have Republicans ever set upon Democratic delegates to a national convention like the lefties did in New York during the convention there? They stalked Republicans to theaters to shout abuse at them and assault them and the police and generally act like barking mad moonbats. Where, Jared, where is the conservative equivalent of THAT?

    Face it, Jared, the left has an army of unhinged followers with whom the right can not possibly compete in quantity nor quality for sheer crazed moonbattery.

    Steve

  208. Anonymous says:

    “Where is the conservative equivalent of the lefty conspiracy fruitcakes? There is a legion of left wing nuts who think Bush engineered Sep 11, blowing up the Pentagon and WTC to take over the world.”

    – could it be the right wing loony toons who think that what happened in new orleans was god’s punishment to the american people for homosexuality? .. or maybe it was just because they were black.

  209. Will says:

    Steve

    I apologize for goading you with my mock insult. Sarcasm without the benefit of tone is easy to miss. I was making the point that it reduces the level of discourse and alienates those you are trying to reach. I fail to see how using terms like “Muslim scum” instead of “terrorist scum” furthers your argument.

    Releasing murderers is not the logical alternative to executeing them. Framing a position in its extremes looks good on paper and is easy to attack but completely misses the point. Executeing Zarqawi in lieu of letting him continue his mayhem makes sense. This is not the same as executeing Saddam now that he is captured.


    But of course, your criticism would never fall on them, would it?

    Open your eyes man. I am speaking against policies that reduce us to the same level as those we are fighting to defeat.

    That dizziness comes from trying to change the shape of the facts to fit your rigid ideology.

  210. sunrunner says:

    Oh, and was it a “Hollywood lefty” who said that John Murtha was why fragging was invented? And thought that the idea that Timothy McVeigh should’ve bombed the NY Times building on Times Square building instead of the Federal building in Oklahoma City was “prescient” is also “leftist hate speech?”

    Jeeze Louise!

  211. Anonymous says:

    In The Politics of Rage, Carter writes, “If [Wallace] did not create the conservative groundswell that transformed American politics in the 1980s, he anticipated most of its themes. It was Wallace who sensed and gave voice to a growing national white backlash in the 1960s; it was Wallace who warned of the danger to the American soul posed by the `intellectual snobs who don’t know the difference between smut and great literature’; it was Wallace who railed against federal bureaucrats who not only wasted the tax dollars of hardworking Americans, but lacked the common sense to `park their bicycles straight.’

    Steve I believe this is what billT was trying to get across. Toss in that many who voted democratic in the south back then

  212. Jared in NYC says:

    Steve is best left talking to himself.

  213. The flaw in your logic is that you are using the term “conservative” ambiguously, using it one sense to describe somebody who wants to preserve the old order and then switching the meaning to say he is part of the Conservative political movement. George Wallace was conservative in the sense that he wanted to maintain the old Jim Crow laws and white supremacy just as liberals described Soviet Communists as “conservatives” in that they want to restore the old Communist regime. Neither are conservatives in the sense of those aligned with the Republican party who believe in small government, free markets, free speech, and free minds.

    George Wallace had only a regional following, ie the rural South. There wasn’t much of a white backlash in the US outside the South. The Conservative political movement was not built by George Wallace, who was elected Governor of Alabama four times as a Democrat and who publicly disagreed with Abraham Lincoln (and the Republican Party) that blacks should be able to vote, serve on juries, or hold public office. The Civil Rights Act that Wallace and southern Democrats ferociously opposed was passed with overwhelming Republican support.

    The modern Conservative movement was started by guys like Barry Goldwater, William Buckley, and Ronald Reagan. George Wallace didn’t have anything to do with it. Trying to re-bottle Wallace’s sour southern Democratic racism as Conservatism is an exercise in fraud.

    Nice try at rewriting history. I guess it’s pretty embarassing for you lefties to admit that all those guys down South under those Klan robes were Democrats, huh? Maybe you’ll be trying to pass off Robert Byrd as a conservative next. That’s Democratic Senator Byrd or as he was known back in West Virginia, Exalted Cyclops Byrd.

    Steve

  214. sunrunner: “Oh, and was it a “Hollywood lefty” who said that John Murtha was why fragging was invented? And thought that the idea that Timothy McVeigh should’ve bombed the NY Times building on Times Square building instead of the Federal building in Oklahoma City was “prescient” is also “leftist hate speech? Jeeze Louise!”

    It’s true enough that Ann Coulter said that over the top stuff, though probably more for entertainment value than anything else. But what Coulter says is common fare on the Left, where she is far outnumbered by lefty bombthrowers. I might also point out that the Left has made a practice of physically attacking conservative speakers like Coulter on the podium at lectures. Please name a liberal speaker who has been struck by conservatives while making a public speech anywhere. There aren’t any because the Right lacks the contingent of thugs who compose the Wahhabi wing of the Left, enforcing conformity of thought and beating up blasphemers.

    While Coulter lightheartedly taunts the Left, the Left is decidedly vicious. For example, look at Alec Baldwin’s rant on the Conan O’Brien show: “…if we were in another country… We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families.” While Coulter’s comments are comedic, Baldwin’s comments are unhinged and scary. It’s pretty bad when NBC promises never to rerun that show, dontcha think?

    How about Randi Rhodes calling for the assassination of Bush for reforming Social Security? Or “peace” marchers in San Francisco carrying the banner, “We Support Our Troops…When They Shoot Their Officers.” (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8744) There was the scary “peace” protestor I saw here in my first anti-war demonstration in DC bearing the sign saying “America Must Be Destroyed.” You can go to a million Republican meetings and you will never hear somebody urge America be destroyed. That’s pure lefty talk.

    You won’t see these kinds of incitements to murder and destruction on the Right, but they are the mainstream on the Left. Even Howard “Arrrghh!” Dean floated the idea during his campaign for the Democratic nomination that Bush had engineered the Sep 11 attacks. Now he’s head of the Democratic party. He and all the Democratic players are pandering to the lunatic minority of the Left on Daily Kos. Face it, the moonbats are a big part of the Left and are tugging it over the edge into madness.

    And that’s what I love about the Left. They’re just so friggin’ insane. Beating them is like shooting fish in a barrel. It’s a shame for you guys that voters don’t like their politicians nutty as squirrel droppings.

    Steve

  215. Will: “Releasing murderers is not the logical alternative to executeing them. Framing a position in its extremes looks good on paper and is easy to attack but completely misses the point. Executeing Zarqawi in lieu of letting him continue his mayhem makes sense. This is not the same as executeing Saddam now that he is captured.”

    Releasing murderers is only extreme to conservatives, not liberals. For Pete’s sake, Dukakis was letting murderers, robbers, and rapists out of prison on the weekends, a policy he fiercely defended without relent. I can imagine the chimp-like puzzlement on the liberal faces should someone wonder if giving murderers, robbers, and rapists the weekends off on their prison sentences might put the population at risk of being killed, robbed, and raped.

    Likewise, California liberals reduced death sentences for killers like Charles Manson to life imprisonment. Now, instead of being executed, he comes up regularly for parole.

    The fact is that liberals, despite their rhetoric, want to free murderers and do their darnedest to do so by degrees: death to life sentences, parole to freedom. Many liberals don’t think it’s possible to be a criminal, that it’s the system to blame.

    As for Saddam, there’s hardly a better case for capital punishment than for a dictator who has murdered uncounted hundreds of thousands, many of them personally, having people thrown into vats of acid and plastic shredders, shot, tortured to death, forced victims to watch their wives and daughters raped and killed before executing them, and so on. Allowing Saddam to breathe when he has so cruelly done so many in is obscene and unjust. Allowing him the comfort of a jail cell also preserves the possibility that he may be freed someday.

    Will: “Open your eyes man. I am speaking against policies that reduce us to the same level as those we are fighting to defeat. That dizziness comes from trying to change the shape of the facts to fit your rigid ideology.”

    It’s really quite the reverse, Will. Lefties are trying to distort the deaths of civilians inadvertently killed by the US military to make the bogus argument that our policy is equivalent to the insurgent butchers who purposely target civilians en masse and use them as human shields in order to make Iraq ungovernable. Some brain-damaged lefties like Teddy Kennedy and John Murtha equate the US to Saddam. That is some twisty pretzel logic. If you want to see the facts changed to fit a rigid ideology, take a good long look at the lefty attempt to fit Iraq into the Vietnam template. The main problem with the Left is that they want the bad guys to win. Again. The smarmy assertion that you are doing so out of patriotism is rich hypocrisy.

    Steve

  216. Anonymous says:

    I believe this is what billT was trying to get across. Toss in that many who voted democratic in the south back then are now voting republican.

    Couldnt find a edit button so above is what I said.

    Steve the American except for JFK I have voted republican my whole life and if being willing to listen and discuss something you dont agree with makes me a leftie then they might have a point.

    I followed a link to this site that said it was a place where people could openly discuss things. Obviously this isnt the case so this lady is out of here.

    Oh and Stevie darling a little medical advice since you have a major problem. Take some Viagra to counter the booze and go fuck yourself.

    Now I sound like a liberal.

    Lei

  217. Will says:

    Lei

    I am not sure what constitutes an open discussion in your world but this site is as open as any that I have encountered. Your vulgarity doesnt make much of a point. You might try attacking the arguement instead of the person.

  218. Jared in NYC says:

    Lei,

    I understand your annoyance – I don’t engage Steve anymore because even when he starts to make a good point, which is often, he nearly always goes over the top in the most objectionable way possible. There are others here with right of center views who are perfectly lovely people (I’m problably left of center about three times more often than I’m to the right of it) and very worth while to exchange views with.

    Please hang around and contribute.

    Jared

  219. Lei: “Oh and Stevie darling a little medical advice since you have a major problem. Take some Viagra to counter the booze and go fuck yourself. Now I sound like a liberal.”

    Who said we couldn’t agree on anything? Yes, Lei, you do sound like a liberal. Liberals usually react to dissenting opinions by pitching a vulgar fit. I’ve seen it hundreds of times before and I will see it hundreds of times in the future. The reason for this is that most liberal arguments are unexamined positions adopted to fit in with the liberal herd as opposed to carefully considered and reasoned arguments. They are about as thoughtful as bumper sticker slogans. When challenged, lefties usually explode in outrage at the heretic who blasphemes the liberal orthodoxy. What I like about your response is that it helps confirm that most of the left are not intellectually superior, as they preposterously claim, but crude vulgarians unable to defend their nonsensical assertions with anything more than expletives.

    Lei?: “I believe this is what billT was trying to get across. Toss in that many who voted democratic in the south back then are now voting republican.

    Lei: “Couldnt find a edit button so above is what I said.”

    Most of the Southerners who voted Democratic in the 1960s are dead now. They might still be voting in the Democratic precincts but in general they have been replaced by a new generation which has rejected the Democratic party. Had you ever lived in the South you would know that most Southerners are embarassed by the Klan and the racist past of the South and proud that such attitudes are a thing of the past. I recall one of my Texan friends who was horrified to find Klan robes in a trunk left up in the attic by her long dead grandfather. She was Republican. He was Democrat.

    Modern Southerners are repelled by many things about the Democrats: their anti-Americanism, their hatred of the military, their anti-business attitude, their fondness for big government, their alliance with unions, their opposition to the Second Ammendment, and so on. In Texas, that flipped county after county from Democrat to Republican until only a few liberal islands remain, such as Austin. That’s the story of the South.

    No matter how many times you try to shapeshift Democrat racist George Wallace into the leader of Republican conservatism, that square peg just doesn’t fit in the round hole.

    Steve

  220. Will: “Gandhi was a great man and showed the world the power of non-violence and personal courage. That student in Tienamen square had it too. We all have it and if more of us used it the world would be a better place. I would call that an ideal. Something to be strived toward. It doesnt mean that you dont shoot the rabid dog that attacks you.”

    Ghandi also was a shrewd judge of the limits of non-violent resistance. When his son asked him if he should resist with force should somebody attack him, Ghandi told him yes. He stated that non-violent resistance was appropriate under some conditions, violent resistance under other conditions. Ghandi said one of the conditions for successful non-violent resistance was that your opponent has a sympathetic moral code. He judged correctly that the British were moral people who would be outraged at violent excesses directed by the British military against peaceful Indian civilian protestors demanding the rights guaranteed to British citizens.

    The student facing down the tanks in Tiananmen Square is a good case illustrating the limits of non-violent resistance. Those tanks were manned by local troops who were much like the students and sympathetic to them. The Chinese government replaced them with troops from outer provinces who had no sympathy for them. Those are the troops who mowed down thousands of the protestors when they retook the square. The students made the fatal mistake of thinking their government had a moral code that would sympathize with their protest.

    Of course, non-violent protest didn’t work at all against the Nazis. Jews who refused to move on Nazi orders at the train platforms at Auschwitz were simply shot and chucked into the ovens.

    Likewise, non-violent resistance has no chance of working against the Muslim fundamentalists. They don’t make deals or concessions. They don’t have any sympathy for you, an infidel who rejects Allah. As directed by the Koran, you will either convert to Islam, accept subjugation as a dhimmi, or die. If you resist this violently or non-violently, you die.

    Nor will the Muslim crazies take you captive while you wear them down by going limp or chaining yourselves together like you do in the West at a protest handled by police happy to get the overtime. As the Koran says in Chapter 8, Verse 67: “It is not fit for a prophet to take captives unless he has fought and triumphed in the land. You desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter.” In other words, they’ll kill you to conquer the world for Allah. That’s why all those Westerners captured by Al Qaeda are executed on video, in accordance with the Koran. The Islamists will kill you for resisting the Caliphate just like the Nazis would kill you for resisting the Third Reich.

    Will: “Obviously it is morally justified or even necessary to defend yourself from aggression. I guess your comment about attacking Saudis sounded more like revenge lust than defensive. Terrorism is a cancer not ebola. Furthermore, 20% of Saudi income comes from the US. Stop buying their oil and selling them guns.”

    Will, oil is a fungible commodity. Boycotting Saudi oil is an exercise in futility. It would simply be sold to somebody else and we would buy from somebody else without any effect on the market. As long as there is a global base of combustion engines, Saudi will sell their oil.

    The Saudis are not a conventional threat because we sell them weapons. As the Saudis themselves discovered, all those weapon systems we sold them were virtually worthless in repelling Saddam’s invasion during the first Gulf War. They needed America to provide their defense.

    The Saudis are unable to defend themselves even given modern weapons because of the general dysfunctional nature of their culture as described in this article, “Why Arabs Lose Wars,” (http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2000/issue1/jv4n1a2.html). The Saudi military is staffed with second sons looking for a position. They’re none too interested in learning a complicated weapon system. They’d rather drink tea and complain about the infidels. They leave that to the enlisted guys, who are too stupid to learn it. And nobody wants to fight and die for Saudi Arabia. They’re not exactly full of fighting spirit for their country. When the Iraqis took the Saudi town of Khafji, the Saudis had to be prodded to resist them. When radicals took over the Great Mosque in Mecca, the Saudis had to hire French mercenaries to take it back. They couldn’t handle a hundred rebels.

    Selling the Saudis weapons they are incompetent to use provides the US with some influence with them. The Saudis are not using the tanks and planes we sell them to do violence. They are using unconventional means to perpetrate terror around the world. The US military did not sell the Saudis the box cutters they used on Sep 11. We are not selling them the materials to construct their makeshift bombs. There are no US defense contractors selling beheading knives.

    Here’s an idea you might want to mull over: America is not the ultimate source of all evil. Everything evil done in the world does not somehow stem back to something America did or didn’t do. I know it’s a big thing for you to swallow, but give it a try.

    Here’s another thing to consider: Saudi Arabia is responsible for the evil Saudi Arabia perpetrates.

    Steve

  221. billT says:

    You might as well give up Will.

  222. billT says:

    Here’s another thing to consider: Saudi Arabia is responsible for the evil Saudi Arabia perpetrates.

    How about America is responsible for the evil we produce.

    billT

  223. Jared in NYC says:

    Bill,

    America is responsible for the evil it produces, and we certainly have done many awful things.

    On balance though, we’ve done much more good than harm, as examined over the past 225+ years, or in just about any 25 year segment. Certainly, our mal or benevolence can be distorted by concentrating on any one specific area or event.

    Following your link however, reveals that any good we’ve done, such as our role in defeating the Nazi’s for instance, is completely overshadowed by our governments active complicity in securing the freedom of Dallas Austin. A sad, sad day for humanity.

    Jared

  224. Lujayn says:

    Jared, while you’ll have heard a lot of criticism of US foreign policy from many of us, including myself, I believe there are countless examples of US individuals, organizations and lobby groups that have done much good around the world. I was reading about a NY-based lawyer who was representing six Guantanamo prisoners on a pro-bono basis, because he believed, not in their innocence necessarily, but in their right to due process. That level of respect for justice and human rights is admirable.

    I believe there are many Americans out there making use of their freedom to secure it for others, across a variety of extensive causes, whether its sweatshop workers in Southeast Asia or victims of ethnic cleansing in Darfur or Muslims in Guantanamo Bay. Granted, it is much easier for people in free countries to do that, yet it is also easy to just ignore causes that have little direct effect on your own world. Yet these people choose to get involved. I definitely respect that in Americans.

  225. Jared in NYC says:

    Here’s a little more on the topic of reform in Islam coming from American Muslims:

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/03/muslim_scholars_in_us_push_for_change/

    Here are a few excerpts:

    An increasingly prominent group of Muslims and former Muslims in the United States — ranging from soft-spoken Islamic scholars to outspoken intellectuals and professionals — are defying death threats and ostracism to campaign for changes in the way their religion is practiced

    and

    ”It astonished me, after my escape from Egypt, to find the same kind of ideas and the same kind of people here that I was struggling against in Egypt,” he said in an interview last week in the downtown Boston office of his lawyer.

    Literature and speakers in the mosque said ”America is the enemy of Islam, America is killing Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq. They said that the Jews are enemies of Muslim people and are conspiring against Muslims with the Americans. . . . To be a good Muslim, you have to defend America,” he said, ”because this country defends the Islamic values of democracy and free speech.”

    Jared

  226. Jared in NYC says:

    Lujayne,

    Thank you very much for your words. As an American who hopes and believes that our Constitution and core values often shine through in times of crises (sometimes a bit late, but eventually), I especially appreciate the example you cite.

    Surely there are many evil people imprisoned in Guantanamo, and others who have done nothing wrong. Either way, the laws of the United States, and the international treaties that we have signed make it clear that the absence of due process there is illegal.

    60 Years ago, US Supreme Court Justice Wiley B. Rutledge issued an opinion in a case involving a Japanese general convicted of war crimes including this statement:

    “It is not too early, it is never too early, for the nation steadfastly to follow its great constitutional traditions, none older or more universally protective against unbridled power than due process of law in the trial and punishment of men, that is, of all men, whether citizens, aliens, alien enemies or enemy belligerents.”

    The US Supreme Court agreed in a landmark ruling last week in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld. Here’s the entire thing:

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

    Jared

  227. billT says:

    Dallas Austin deserved to do the time for 2 reasons. 1st he broke their laws and 2nd he must be plain stupid to travel internationally with drugs in his pocket. Instead Hatch helps him out. Its a prime example of how people in power do things for their own reasons.

    Every time I read Mahmoods posts on his parliament I wish him luck in electing a better group but at the same time I dont expect them to be much better than the old group.

    Anyway its time for the World Cup finals now. Go France!

    billT

  228. Lujayn says:

    Hey billT, I’ve been behind you so far, but that last Go France! well, I’m dissappointed 😀 Go Italy!

  229. Jared in NYC: “Surely there are many evil people imprisoned in Guantanamo, and others who have done nothing wrong. Either way, the laws of the United States, and the international treaties that we have signed make it clear that the absence of due process there is illegal.”

    Those who ended up in Gitmo by mistake have long ago been culled out and released. Gitmo has been reduced to the hard core Muslim killers. If anything, the military has been too lenient in such releases as a dozen of the released have returned to their former lives as terrorists and killers. The difficulty in sorting out the combatants from the innocent bystanders is due to the the jihadis refusal to identify themselves as combatants in accordance with international law. In short, it is the outlaw approach of the jihadi warmakers which has created this confusion, not their American targets.

    America has signed no international treaties with the Taliban nor Al Qaeda, so your insistence that we abide by such treaties makes no sense. Are you arguing that a treaty we signed with France applies to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, both of whom reject any such treaties with infidels, who reject the notion of law created by infidels as blasphemous? Need I point out that Al Qaeda murders its prisoners? They recognize no law but the Koran, which calls for the murder of such prisoners. Why do you insist on supporting a legal framework that gives Muslim barbarians every advantage and places every burden of compliance only on America? When the Muslim jihadis refuse to observe the international rules of war, the risk should fall entirely on them, not us.

    The Geneva Convention allows for prisoners of war to be released at the end of hostilities. That is precisely what the US is doing. The fact that the Muslim terrorists have declared perpetual war on America until they have conquered the world is to their disadvantage.

    Due process applies to American citizens and foreign visitors, not foreign combatants for whom international law applies. The German U-boat crew who sunk the Lusitania did not acquire the rights of American citizens by firing their torpedoes. The Japanese did not acquire the protection guaranteed by the Bill of Rights by attacking Pearl Harbor. Likewise, Al Qaeda does not acquire the rights of a US citizen by butchering US citizens.

    The German, Japanese, and Italian prisoners of war who identified themselves as combatants in WWII by wearing a uniform and publicly declaring war did not receive trials in US courts to determine their guilt and consider their release. It is obvious to the casual observer that German prisoners captured on the Normandy beach should not be taken to court to see if there is any evidence that they had made war on the US and, if not, be released to continue combat.

    Likewise, Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners captured on the battlefield or in foreign lands making terror on civilians should not be taken to court to consider their release. They should be at least held until the end of hostilities. I might point out that under the Geneva Convention combatants who do not identify themselves as such, as is the practice of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, are considered spies and can be legally executed. By letting them live, the US has demonstrated generosity far in excess of that demanded by the Geneva Convention.

    By contrast, you seek to give the ruthless killers of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who do not comply with the Geneva Convention nor international treaties, privileges not available to those legitimate combatants who do agree to these legal restrictions on war. Why do terrorists deserve more rights than legitimate combatants, Jared?

    Your demand that terrorists be given all the protection of the Geneva Convention plus trials in American courts to determine their guilt violates the spirit of the Geneva Convention, which sought to minimize the cruelty of war and prohibit attacks on civilians. You, by contrast, seek to legitimize terrorists as legal combatants, terrorists who seek to maximize cruelty and purposely target civilians.

    The bottom line is that you are simply lobbying for better working conditions for terrorists like a union steward for Al Qaeda. The hypocrisy is that you claim to be doing it for the benefit of America, the America the terrorists seek to destroy.

    Steve

  230. Jared in NYC says:

    Steve vs. the Supreme Court of the US. According to Steve, he wins.

  231. Jared in NYC says:

    Hey Bill, do you remember, about 11 years ago, when some idiot kid in Singapore, the spoiled brat son of US foreign service workers, vandalized a bunch of cars and was sentanced to be whipped?

    There was a manufactured outcry Stateside by the Clinton administration and the press. A friend of mine from India (she’s a US citizen now), was working for a multinational bank in Singapore at the time, and told me that the high court there received thousands of letters from Americans in support of the punishment. Good on them!

    Dallas Austin did the crime, and you’re right that he should do the time. Bailing him out didn’t strike me as a REALLY big evil though, so I figured your post was sardonic and I replied in kind.

    I’m still trying to figure out what Orrin Hatch’s motivation was though. Seems kinda weird.

    Jared

  232. Jared in NYC: “Following your link however, reveals that any good we’ve done, such as our role in defeating the Nazi’s for instance, is completely overshadowed by our governments active complicity in securing the freedom of Dallas Austin. A sad, sad day for humanity.”

    Dallas Austin got busted for carrying a gram of cocaine into Dubai, spent seven weeks in jail, was convicted, and then pardoned by the ruler of Dubai. Seven weeks in an Arab jail sounds about right to me for a gram of coke, though if they chose to keep him in the slammer for a year or two, that would have been fine with me, too. I find myself in rare agreement with BillT that Dallas Austin must be some kind of braindead stupid to be carrying narcotics on an international flight, let alone on a flight to a Muslim country. Hasn’t he seen “Midnight Express”?

    However, your crazed notion that the trivial legal escapades of some minor potty-mouthed musician/songwriter makes null and void the American defeat of Nazi tyranny raises anti-American sentiment to a new and blitheringly idiotic high. Such a claim makes it hard to tell who is more wacked out his head, Dallas Austin or Jared. Will you be telling us next that if some American tourist smoked a joint in Germany that cancels out the Marshall Plan?

    Steve

  233. Jared in NYC: “Steve vs. the Supreme Court of the US. According to Steve, he wins.”

    The Supreme Court ruled in its decision on Dred Scott that blacks have no rights that white people are bound to respect. Do you support the authority of the Supreme Court in that decision, Jared? I mean, it’s the Supreme Court so they can’t possibly be wrong, right?

    The Supreme Court has recently ruled in the Kelo case that government can take private property and transfer it to another private owner if that new owner can make a better profit on it. Do you support that, Jared? Do you think it should be legal for a town to condemn your home and transfer it to developers to make condos or a resort? It’s the Supreme Court so that must be fair, right?

    The Supreme Court can be wrong. Hamdan is such a case. And I note that you avoid contesting my arguments. Why?

    Steve

  234. billT says:

    I remember. Jared your right its not really a big thing. I just have a thing about hard drugs and really dont like an elected official helping him out. I cant figure out why Hatch would help him out either.

    billT

  235. billT says:

    Lujayn great 1st half.

    billT

  236. Jared in NYC says:

    Lujayne and Bill – I admit I haven’t got a favorite in the World cup, but lean toward Italy. The reason is that they’re the only team the US scored a goal against… and they actually scored that one for us! 😉

    Jared

  237. Lujayn says:

    Hell, I’m leaning both ways now. Both teams are playing brilliantly!

  238. billT says:

    We were so over ranked its funny. Great game so far and Im so glad they arent handing out cards like earlier in the tournament.

  239. Lujayn says:

    Pity about Zidane’s moment of idiocy. He was doing so well – and that moment will probably be the highlight of the end of his career. The Italians had my full support after that.

  240. billT says:

    Mine to. Heck of a way to end your career. Wonder what the Italian player said to him? It didn’t look like much of a verbal confrontation.

  241. mahmood says:

    I’m betting it’s a racist comment. Let’s see what comes out in the media today as they are bound to cover it.

  242. Lujayn says:

    Yeah, but every league is full of racism. Its probably one of the most racist domains. I was reading up on Zidane’s past and apparently this wasnt the first time. He stomped on a Saudi player in the 1998 games, and in 2000 headbutted a German player. He was sent off on both counts. This guy could use an anger management course.

  243. mahmood says:

    didn’t know that… any player deserves to be sent off for actions like this shenanigan. stupid… but hey, they’re professional footballers, so what do you expect?! <ducking>

  244. Jared in NYC says:

    Maybe they should play in South Africa. On a recent trip there, I learned that there was no racism in South Africa. Oddly though, all the dogs there are racist (dark humor).

    Jared

  245. Lujayn says:

    Jared, got to respect this:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5169600.stm

    Its a good start. Hope it extends further and to everyone in custody.

  246. Jared in NYC says:

    Lujayne,

    I’m glad this happened, because it reasserts the rule of law in the separation of powers between the three branches of American government – especially between the executive and the legislative. Honestly though, I think it’s unlikely to have any immediate impact, though the long range implications are powerful.

    This is my best understanding:

    As a result fo the Supreme Court ruling, the Bush Administration has directed the military commander at Guantanamo to comply with article 3 of the Geneva conventions, which pertains to the treatment of prisoners. The commander at Guantanano, questioned directly by a US senate delegation about what changes would be made in prisoner treatment to achieve compliance, insisted that there would be none because they were already in compliance.

    The ruling can’t be applied to prisoners whose existense or location is ambiguous. For instance, those subjected to third country rendition.

    The real effect is that, contrary to the original assertions of the Bush Administration, prisoners cannot be processed by military tribunals where they can’t face accusers, or even be present. Congress however, could write legislation that permits this, and all would be as it was before, though that seems very unlikely. Many members of conrgess, including senior Republicans, are finally indicating their willingness to check executive power.

    Louis Brandeis, a Supreme Court Justice from 1916 – 1939, famously said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. If due process were available from the beginning, we may have avoided a lot of image problems and abuse scandals. Hopefully, we’re headed back on to the right track.

    Jared

  247. Will says:

    I was encouraged by the ruling.

    Who was it who wrote “We hold these truths to be self evident…”. If it is not true for everybody then it is not true for anybody.

  248. Jared: “I’m glad this happened, because it reasserts the rule of law in the separation of powers between the three branches of American government – especially between the executive and the legislative. Honestly though, I think it’s unlikely to have any immediate impact, though the long range implications are powerful.”

    It does enforce separation of powers but rather the Supreme Court is overruling the legislative branch’s ability to make treaties, in this case by granting terrorists who do not comply with the Geneva Convention with the protection of it and additional rights to be tried in domestic courts.

    Jared: “As a result fo the Supreme Court ruling, the Bush Administration has directed the military commander at Guantanamo to comply with article 3 of the Geneva conventions, which pertains to the treatment of prisoners. The commander at Guantanano, questioned directly by a US senate delegation about what changes would be made in prisoner treatment to achieve compliance, insisted that there would be none because they were already in compliance.”

    This is a distorted spin on reality. The Bush Administration did not order Gitmo to comply with the Geneva Convention. You’re implying falsely that they had no such orders previously. The Bush Administration passed on the ruling of the Supreme Court.

    This is rougly equivalent to a situation where an Air Force maintenance squadron is informally checking oil in jet engines every hundred hours and then Air Force HQ passes on a manufacturer’s recommendation to make hundred hour oil checks.

    Jared: “The real effect is that, contrary to the original assertions of the Bush Administration, prisoners cannot be processed by military tribunals where they can’t face accusers, or even be present. Congress however, could write legislation that permits this, and all would be as it was before, though that seems very unlikely. Many members of conrgess, including senior Republicans, are finally indicating their willingness to check executive power.”

    Jared, do you really think it is a good idea to hold open trials of illegal combatants making war on America and produce the informants who identified them, the covert technical means by which we gathered evidence, the chain of custody of that evidence, and a host of lawyers, judges, jurors, and witnesses who can be threatened or killed? Why do you liberals want to give away every advantage to the terrorists?

    Jared: “Louis Brandeis, a Supreme Court Justice from 1916 – 1939, famously said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. If due process were available from the beginning, we may have avoided a lot of image problems and abuse scandals. Hopefully, we’re headed back on to the right track.”

    When Judge Brandeis wanted to disinfect with sunlight, was his intent to illuminate our secret agents, means, and methods for the terrorists?

    Steve

  249. Will: “I was encouraged by the ruling. Who was it who wrote “We hold these truths to be self evident…”. If it is not true for everybody then it is not true for anybody.”

    Was it the intent of Jefferson and the founding fathers to guarantee to terrorists the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Please explain to me why America should guarantee to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the Sep 11, the right to the Pursuit of Happiness which, in his case, involves killing as many Americans as he possibly can?

    Do you guys ever think about what you’re saying?

    Steve

  250. Will says:

    Do you guys ever think about what you’re saying?

    Steve

    Not me. I am unencumbered by the thought process.

    The point is that you have the rights to start with. They can and should be taken away with just cause. Due process is everything.

  251. Foreigners have no right to due process in America unless they are legitimate visitors. Terrorists caught on the battlefied with no identifying insignia nor uniform have no rights at all, not even to life. They can be legally executed on the spot. American citizens turned terrorist like Padilla have a right to due process in an American court. Terrorists caught on the battlefield outside America have no rights as an American citizen, only the rights specified under international law. In their case, that’s hardly any rights since they are not legal combatants.

    Steve

  252. Will says:

    It is not about American or foreign rights. It is about human rights. It is not about how the world is treating me. It is about how am I treating the world.

    Are you familiar at all with fractal geometry?

  253. Lujayn says:

    Jared,

    You made an excellent point. The US lost a lot of precious credibility when it put aside its respect for the law and human rights post Sept 11. If these men are really terrorists, and the US military has evidence to support their claims, whats to prevent them from presenting it in a court of law? If justice for the victims of terrorism is paramount, then why not try these men in courts of law to get their due punishment? I just dont understand what the point is of holding them indefinitely, without trial. To keep US agents, means and methods, safely above any law?

    If a US soldier was being held by a foreign power (who considers him an enemy combatent, and there are plenty of those), would the US sit back and say, yep, they’re right, he’s a terrorist in their eyes, and not eligible for due process. The law is law, regardless of who it applies to. I would have liked to have seen it extend to other countries, not erode in the US.

  254. zara says:

    and in fact now it seems Bush has conceded that the GTMO detainees are entitled to protection under the geneva conventions!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5169600.stm

    i’ll dance in the streets for that one =)

  255. Jared in NYC says:

    Lujayne and Will, your comments are spot-on. One of the best things to surface in the public eye with this issue is the number of career US military JAG and line officers, and elected US politicians who identify as Conservative or Republican, who have been making the same points, either struggling through the military or civilian court system, behind closed doors in Washington, and sometimes even in the media.

    Not to make too much of my (peacetime) military service, but I met many people there with different social and political philosophies than mine who I came to respect. Although my own views overlap with those of more conservative people a minority of the time, I’ve always known that most people in that camp were repulsed when Vice President Cheney was arguing for torture in the Senate.

    Our strength comes mostly from our core shared values.

    Jared

  256. Jared in NYC says:

    Zara,

    If you’re interested in a more in-depth article from an American judicial and military perspective, I’d recommend the link below. Here’s an axcerpt from the header:

    Geoffrey S. Corn, Lt. Col. US Army (Ret.) and former Special Assistant to the Judge Advocate General for Law of War Matters, now a professor at South Texas College of Law, says that the US Supreme Court’s finding in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to US military operations against al Qaeda restores a broad approach to basic law of war doctrine long held by US military lawyers….

    http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/07/hamdan-common-article-3-and-true.php

  257. billT says:

    Our strength comes mostly from our core shared values.

    And the ability to eventually get things right thru the process of law.

    billT

  258. Will says:

    I agree billT and if the law doesnt allow for the right action then it needs to be changed. Two bit dictators and ambulance chasing lawyers I expect to weasel around the letter of the law. I expect the govt of the US to do the right thing.

    This is not WW2 and the laws governing warfare (oxymoron) need to reflect the reality.

  259. Anonymous says:

    I think one of the reasons the goverment doesnt want to try those at guantanamo in a public court of law stems from the simple fact that most of the time barring overwhelming evedence the justice department would loose to any good lawyer.

  260. Anon: “I think one of the reasons the goverment doesnt want to try those at guantanamo in a public court of law stems from the simple fact that most of the time barring overwhelming evedence the justice department would loose to any good lawyer.”

    Any lawyer could get any prisoner of war found not guilty because evidence is not collected in the chaos and fog of war. For example, if the US tried the German soldiers captured at Normandy to see if they had engaged in combat, it’s doubtful that any US soldier could match them to shots fired or soldiers killed. Of course, many of the witnesses would be dead or wounded. There are also no detectives to take statements on the battlefield nor evidence vans to collect fingerprints and blood samples.

    This is one of dozens of reasons why it is foolish to treat combatants in a war as domestic criminals. There are international treaties which deal with international hostilities, none of which demand that prisoners be tried in a court of law to determine their offenses.

    This mode of treating terrorism as a felony to be dealt with by the justice system was a disaster under Clinton. Do the liberals ever learn from their mistakes or are they doomed to repeat them endlessly to the detriment of the nation?

    Steve

  261. zara: “and in fact now it seems Bush has conceded that the GTMO detainees are entitled to protection under the geneva conventions! i’ll dance in the streets for that one =)”

    And you remain indifferent that the jihadis and Baathists make no pretence of complying with the Geneva Convention. This week the jihadis released a video of them cutting the head off one of our soldiers. Where is your complaint of their non-compliance with the Geneva Convention, hypocrite?

    Steve

  262. zara says:

    Jared –
    thanks for the link the jurist reports on Guantanamo Bay have been very good, through and through.
    i think you’re right about shared values, i like the idea of and (believe in) our common humanity .. look fwd to the day when we can all dance in the streets together. peace

  263. Barry says:

    Conservatives in the US claim that the media is biased when their leaders and heroes are criticized. Of course, the right champion gutter snipes like Ann Coulter, which I find incredibly humorous.

    From Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_media

    Claims that media in the United States show liberal bias

    “Liberal media” is a phrase used by some critics in American political discourse to express the view that the American media generally has a liberal bias. The expression is frequently used by critics of the network news shows of CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, the Associated Press, and National Public Radio (NPR]). [4] [5] [6]

    ABC News political director Mark Halperin has claimed that reporters are predominantly liberal in outlook, and inevitably bring some of that background to their reporting in the form of assumptions that can be seen as bias.[2]

    People who use the phrase “liberal bias” claim that liberal biases are evident in both the choice (what stories are favored, or “played,” over others) and coverage (how stories are researched, portrayed, and presented). According to their perceptions, there is a “slant” or “spin” in the news that tends to promote a liberal agenda.

    Those who support the concept of a liberal media bias often also claim that as individuals most journalists, and news producers, hold liberal political views. In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters claimed to be or lean toward being Democratic or liberal. Only 15% claimed to be or lean toward being Republican or conservative. A survey by the Pew Research Center and Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2004 found 34% of journalists describing themselves as liberal, 54% as moderate, and only 7% as conservative.

    Some argue that even asking politicians about their plans to solve social issues is a form of liberal bias, on the grounds that such a question must be based on the liberal assumption that government has a role in solving social or economic problems.

    Proponents of Liberal Bias claims cite other examples such as:

    * Promotion of “deviant” or anti-Christian lifestyles, such as feminism, atheism, homosexuality, abortion, or illicit drug use,
    * Emphasis on extremist views, such as deep ecology, global warming, or animal rights
    * Promotion of communism or other anti-business ideologies
    * Critical coverage of Republicans, sometimes portrayed as as less intelligent, yet are soft on Democrats

    Those who support the view that a liberal media bias exists, have said that the media has a tendency to inflame stories which suggest that guns in the hands of private citizens are responsible for crimes (and ignore those when a gun has been used for positive purposes in law enforcement or self-protection — this would be classified as spiking).

    Many of the positions in the preceding paragraph are supported by a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College: Press Bias and Politics. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.

    Conservative critics claim that the editorial pages of many large U.S. newspapers such as The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, allegedly have a more-or-less explicitly liberal point of view. They claim, however, that a wall exists between editorial and reporting. Some critics see this wall as crumbling in the heat of partisan politics. Newer media, such as television and some web news sources, do not distinguish as clearly between the editorial department and the news department. Conservatives frequently accuse the big three networks of liberal bias in their news reporting. This view is represented by the slogan of Fox News, “Fair and balanced”, which suggests that the competition is not fair and balanced.

    Some people claim that bias is present not just in news programs but in the networks’ other programs as well. Some entertainment programs have been accused of having a subtle political bias.

    In addition to accusations of intentional bias, some accuse reporters of being lazy, and claim that this creates a tendency toward liberal bias, since it takes less effort to challenge politicians and government officials with questions than it does to investigate the actual causes of social problems. Reporters (even conservative reporters) may have a tendency to take the easy path and confront officials with emotion laden social problems and ask “What are you going to do about it?”.

    It has been observed that bias that seems to be politically motivated may be motivated by sensationalism rather than politics.

  264. Samira Adeed says:

    Lets not forget who the real terrorists are and those who continue to murder Iraqis in cold blood – yes thats right Americans and their allies still doing their evil work in Iraq even as I write! Lets hope that Bahrainis have not succombed to the terrorist BS that America churns out by the second and hope they see the truth behind the suffering of Iraqis.

Back to Top